Shark fins in Europe:

Implications for reforming the EU finning ban

November 2010

By Sarah Fowler and Bernard Séret with contributions from Sonja Fordham, Shelley Clarke and Julia Santana Garçon

Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 A Citation: Fowler, S. and Séret, B. 2010. Shark fins in Europe: Implications for reforming the EU finning ban. European Elasmobranch Association and IUCN Shark Contents Specialist Group.

Glossary of abbreviations and acronyms Foreword 2 Box 1 | Defining shark finning 4 1. introduction 3 Box 2 | Costa Rica Case Study 14 CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of 2. European shark fisheries 5 Box 3 | Development of the EU Shark Finning Regulation 16 Antarctic Marine Living Resources 3. EU shark trade 7 Box 4 | Proposed CPOA Action to confirm the ban of finning CP Contracting Party 3.1 Shark fin products and processing 8 practices 24 CPC Cooperating non-Contracting Party 4. implementing finning bans 13 DW Dressed weight (usually the gutted and 4.1 keeping fins attached 13 Figure 1 | Shark catches (tonnes/year) by major fishing beheaded carcass) 4.2 Limiting the numbers of fins landed per carcass 14 nations, 2000-2008 6 EU European Union 4.3 Limiting fin:body weight ratio 15 Figure 2 | Shark fin imports to Hong Kong 1998-2005 8 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the 4.4 reattaching fins 16 Figure 3 | Primary and secondary shark fin sets 9 United Nations 4.5 other methods 16 Figure 4 | Different methods of cutting fins 10 FW Fin weight 5. rfmos on finning regulations 17 Figure 5 | Examples of caudal fin cuts in different fisheries 11 GFCM General Fisheries Commission of the 6. international advice 19 Figure 6 | Partially cut fins 13 Mediterranean 6.1 united Nations General Assembly 19 IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 6.2 iuCN World Conservation Congress 19 Table 1 | Average reported landings of top 20 shark fishing ICCAT International Commission for the 6.3 fish Stocks Agreement Review Conference 19 countries, 2000–2008 5 Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 7. The EU Finning Regulation 20 Table 2 | Top ten shark product exporters during 1997-2006 7 ICES International Council for the Exploration of 7.1 member State actions 20 Table 3 | Mean price for straight-cut frozen shark fin delivered the Sea 7.2 European Parliament action 22 wholesale from the EU to main Asian ports 9 IEO Instituto Español de Oceanografía 7.3 EU finning ban problems and loopholes 22 Table 4 | List of technical measures to assess status of sharks INCOPESCA Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y 8. amending the EU Finning Regulation 24 with respect to conservation and stock assessment 40 Acuicultura 8.1 Community Plan of Action (CPOA) for Sharks 24 IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 8.2 Commission Roadmap 24 MS Member State (of the European Union) 8.3 review of possible Commission options 25 NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization opTION 1: No policy change 25 NEAFC Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission opTION 2: Require that shark fins and bodies are NGO Non-Governmental Organisation landed simultaneously 25 RFB Regional Fisheries Body opTION 3: Apply fin:carcass ratio to dressed rather RFMO Regional Fisheries Management than whole (theoretical) weight 25 Organisation opTION 4: Changing the fin:carcass ratio 26 RW Round weight (also whole or live weight) opTION 5: Match severed fins to carcasses using SCRS Standing Committee on Research and bags or tags 26 Statistics (of ICCAT) opTION 6: Prohibit the removal of shark fins on SEAFO Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization board vessels 27 TAC Total allowable catch 9. Conclusions 28 UNGA United Nations General Assembly 10. recommendations 29 WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Bibliography 30 WPEB Working Party on Ecosystems and Acknowledgements Bycatch (IOTC) Annex I. Summaries of national and regional shark finning prohibitions 32 The authors are most grateful to Sonja Fordham for extraordinary assistance Annex II.  ICCAT Recommendation on the Conservation in compiling and editing information in this report, particularly with respect to of Sharks 38 management, and Shelley Clarke who contributed much of section 3 and other valuable information. Julia Santana Garçon and Nils Roar Hareide also made very Annex III. Extracts from reports of meetings of the Indian important contributions. Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Committees and Working Parties, 2008–2010 39 Tom Blasdale, Maurice Clarke, Guzman Diez, Nick Dulvy, Pedro Bordalo Machado, Mário Rui Pinho, Miguel Neves dos Santos, Fabrizio Serena, and Ross Shotton kindly Annex IV. united Nations General Assembly Sustainable reviewed and improved various drafts. Fisheries Resolutions 44 Annex V. World Conservation Congress Recommendations Gratitude is also extended to Merry Camhi, Steve Campana, John Carlson, Andrew Chin, Mika Diop, Jim Ellis, Farid Hemida, Aaron Henderson, Kim Holland, Jimmy on shark finning 47 Martinez, Hiroaki Matsunaga, Alec Moore, John Morrissey, Sandrine Polti, Caroline Raymakers, Ricardo Rosa, Colin Simpfendorfer, Craig Smith, Anne Schröer, Oscar Sosa-Nishizaki, and Ilena Zanella for sharing their knowledge of shark fisheries, management, and trade. Finally, sincere thanks go to Uta Bellion, Martin Clark, Matt Fidler, Lucy Harrison, Sophie Hulme, Eleanor Partridge, and Hilary Tranter who were instrumental in BfacilitatingShark the report’sfins in production. Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | October 2010 1 Introduction 1

This study study on EU shark fin catching, processing and implement management measures for sharks. Because the life trade practices, and their global significance. was undertaken history characteristics of sharks make them particularly vulnerable to contribute to the current debate on strengthening the EU to overfishing, failure to limit shark fishing promptly and at Finning Regulation. sustainable levels can result in depletion from which decades are needed for recovery. Sharks are captured worldwide in targeted fisheries for their meat, liver oil and fins, and are an important by-product of A small number of fishing nations and RFMOs have introduced many ‘mixed’ fisheries. Pelagic fisheries for tuna and billfishes species-specific fisheries management measures to curb increasingly also target pelagic sharks. These fisheries often exploitation of sharks, but the most widely applied shark capture as many or more sharks than they do large bony fish; fisheries regulation is a generic prohibition on shark finning these sharks are not an accidental ‘bycatch’; indeed fishing (Lack & Sant, 2006). This is a widely accepted measure that, if strategies are often adopted to maximise the shark catch (Gilman implemented effectively, has the potential to contribute towards et al., 2007). Some European Union (EU) Member States are the sustainability of shark populations by minimising waste and among the world’s 20 largest shark catching countries, and reducing shark mortality. In the absence of a finning ban, because include two of the world’s largest pelagic fishing fleets (Lack and shark fins take up little room on vessels and transhipment of Sant 2009, Hareide et al., 2007, FAO FishStat). The EU is one of fins between vessels is reportedly common in some regions the world’s largest suppliers of shark fins to EastA sia (Clarke (e.g. Indo-Pacific), fisheries that discard the carcasses can kill 2004a; Clarke 2004b; Hong Kong CSD, 2010). many more sharks before having to land their catch. Regulations that require fins to remain attached to carcasses also enhance

F lip N icklin /M inden P ictures /FLPA Many populations of sharks, skates and rays (collectively known species-specific data collection, thus providing the information as ‘elasmobranchs’) have declined steeply in recent decades, needed for stock assessments and management. Other means as a result of mostly unregulated fisheries for their meat, livers for banning finning are less effective and hamper shark catch and fins. More than 17% of all known elasmobranchs are now monitoring. For example, although fins landed separately could be classified as threatened in the IUCN (International Union for sorted and counted to produce estimates of landings, there are It is now a long-standing imperative that the catch from Conservation of Nature) Red List of Threatened Species (www. no reports of this being done. Foreword fishing is used efficiently with as little waste as possible. iucnredlist.org). Pelagic, coastal and migratory species are at This does not happen when a shark’s fins are kept but the greatest threat, because of the intensity of fishing effort within by Ross Shotton rest of the shark is discarded. Of even greater importance, their habitats (Fowler et al., in prep. 2010). More than 25% of all effective fisheries management depends on compliance species of pelagic sharks, 35% of epipelagic species (those that with enforceable conservation regulations. It requires the live in the surface waters) and over half of large, oceanic-pelagic collection of species-specific catch information: this is far sharks are threatened (Dulvy et al., 2008, Fowler et al., in prep more achievable when sharks are landed with fins still 2010). attached to their bodies. It is widely acknowledged that effective fisheries management Ross Shotton has more than five decades of broad It is nearly a decade since member governments of the FAO is urgently needed if shark populations are to recover and experience in fisheries research, management, and recognised the crises faced by elasmobranchs and responded sustainable levels of exploitation are to be achieved. However, policy. He has worked for Canada’s Department of with their International Plan of Action–Sharks, one directive implementation of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Fisheries and Oceans and has advised on fisheries of which is the banning of finning. It is pleasing that finally Organization (UN FAO) International Plan of Action for the development projects for nearly 40 countries. Dr. the European Union is examining the effectiveness of the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks), Shotton spent more than a decade at the Fisheries regulations used to enforce its finning ban. Given the EU’s adopted by FAO in 1999, has been disappointing. Relatively few Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization considerable influence on related decisions of Regional fishing States and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations where he supervised the development and Fishery Management Organisations, as well as of developing (RFMOs) have produced shark assessment reports implementation of the International Plan of Action for countries, these upcoming actions stand to significantly alter or developed Shark Management Plans, and shark Sharks. He currently serves as Executive Secretary the global situation for conservation of sharks through their fisheries are continuing largely unchecked in most of the Southern Indian Ocean Deepwater Fishers effects on finning, fisheries enforcement and data collection. of the world’s oceans. Due to lack of political Association. will and/or technical capacity, few shark fishing Fishery managers, as well as fishing industry groups, States are collecting the data needed to inform and should welcome this timely report as valuable and an authoritative guide towards more responsible Many populations of sharks, skates and rays (collectively known as ost and sustainable fishing of shark resources.

‘elasmobranchs’) have declined steeply in recent decades, as a result of mostly J K laus unregulated fisheries for their meat, livers and fins. More than 17% of all known elasmobranchs are now classified as threatened in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (www.iucnredlist.org).

2 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 3 Introduction European shark fisheries 2

This report briefly explains why the influence of EU shark National and regional finning bans are briefly reviewed and recent EU Member States are responsible for a large proportion of fisheries, trade and management policies is of international scientific advice and shark finning ban policy developments global shark landings (Table 1). FAO data show Spain, France, significance for global shark conservation and management from a range of international bodies are summarised. The Portugal and the UK to be among the world’s top 20 shark policies. shortcomings of many methods for implementing shark finning catching countries and a large proportion of these catches bans are described. The 2003 EU Shark Finning Regulation, (particularly those of the large pelagic fleets) are taken Although shark meat is consumed in large quantities in Europe, which aims to prevent finning in EU waters and by EU vessels, outside EU waters. Overall, EU Member State global landings the most valuable shark product is shark fin, which is exported the problems associated with its implementation, and its effect are comparable to those of Indonesia, the world’s largest in large quantities from European fisheries forA sian markets. on the finning policies of RFMOs are discussed in detail. The fishing State, in terms of volume of world shark catches Unprocessed frozen shark fin is presently exported wholesale actions to confirm the ban on finning included in the Community (Figure 1). Spain is also one of the world’s top 10 pelagic from the EU to Asia at 7 to 27 € per kg (see section 3), higher Shark Plan and the options set out in the European Commission fishing nations (FAO Fishstat, 1997–2007). than the retail price for the most valuable shark steaks in Roadmap regarding the proposal to amend the EU Shark Finning European markets. Fong and Anderson (1998) quoted processed Regulation are evaluated and contrasted. French and UK landings are dominated by small demersal coastal fin prices in Hong Kong ranging from 125 to 415 USD per kg, species, targeted for meat and landed whole. EU catches of compared with shark meat retailed in European markets for 1 Finally, recommendations are made for adopting a practical, small sharks, skates and rays have declined over the past decade to 10 USD per kg, depending upon species (Vannuccini 1999). effective, and enforceable EU finning prohibition that will due to population depletion and increased regulation. Formerly This report briefly describes these products and the different also comply with the latest recommendations from the 2010 valuable EU porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and spiny dogfish (Squalus cuts used by fishermen and traders to remove fins from shark Review Conference for the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. These acanthias) fisheries have been closed to enable stocks to recover carcasses. These considerations are important for understanding are presented for consideration as a contribution to the current from severe depletion. Deepwater shark fisheries were formerly what shark finning is, why it happens, and how various methods debate regarding a Proposal for a Council Regulation amending important in the Northeast Atlantic, but the total allowable catch

are applied in an attempt to prevent it. Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003 on the removal of shark fins for most of these species is now set at zero. There is pelagic WORLD CRAM on board vessels..

Table 1 | Average reported landings of top 20 shark fishing countries, 2000–2008 (updated from Lack & Sant, 2009) Rank Country/territory Average catch 2000-08 Proportion of global catch 1. Indonesia † 109,248 13.3% Box 1 | Defining shark finning 2. India 74,050 9.0% 3. Spain * † 59,777 7.3% Finning is defined as cutting off a shark’s fins on board a cruelty to sharks if they are finned alive. It is also widely 4. Taiwan † 47,636 5.8% vessel and then discarding the rest of the carcass into the viewed as an undesirable fisheries practice for several sea. Removing shark fins on land during catch processing is reasons, all of which are incompatible with the FAO Code of 5. Argentina † 35,089 4.3% not included in this definition. Conduct for Sustainable Fisheries: 6. Mexico * † 33,971 4.1%  shark fin fisheries are associated with excessive 7. Pakistan 32,277 3.9% There is an economic incentive to fin sharks arising from mortality as fishing effort is not limited by hold space; the marked discrepancy in value between shark fins (which  finning wastes a substantial amount of protein and 8. US * † 30,686 3.7% are among the world’s most valuable fisheries products) imperils food security; 9. Japan † 24,961 3.0% and shark meat. Fins are also easy to handle and store on  finning threatens the sustainability of commercial, 10. Malaysia † 24,334 3.0% board vessels, while meat is more difficult to store in good subsistence and recreational fisheries; condition and occupies hold space that could otherwise be  finning hinders the collection of species-specific catch 11. Thailand † 22,729 2.8% used for more valuable species. data needed to monitor population trends and set 12. France * † 21,511 2.6% sustainable catch levels; 13. Brazil * † 20,014 2.4% The finning and discard of shark carcasses is also of  overfishing (which may be driven by finning) is widely considerable public concern because of the perceived recognised as the greatest single cause of extinction 14. Sri Lanka 19,989 2.4% risk to sharks; and 15. New Zealand * † 18,005 2.2%  the removal of large numbers of top predators may 16. Portugal * † 15,819 1.9% destabilise marine ecosystems. 17. Nigeria 14,311 1.7% The problems caused by shark finning are therefore 18. Iran 14,001 1.7% discussed regularly at regional and international fisheries 19. United Kingdom * † 13,356 1.6% and environment meetings. Finning is now prohibited by most RFMOs, more than 20 shark fishing States and the 27 20. Korea 11,887 1.4%

ost Member States of the EU, but the majority of these finning World 824,364 100% bans have loopholes that hinder compliance monitoring Those marked * have shark finning regulations; † have Shark Management Plans – some not implemented.

J K laus and enforcement. These figures exclude discarded and unreported catches, which combined likely exceed reported catches.

4 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 5 European shark fisheries European Union shark trade 3

The EU is a major player in global shark product markets, Most of the EU’s contribution to Hong Kong’s imports of both Figure 1 | Shark catches (tonnes/year) by major fishing nations, 2000-2008 (FAO Fishstat) particularly for meat and fins. Its combined Member State dried and frozen shark fin derives from Spanish exports (see vessels comprise a wide-ranging shark fishing fleet that ranks Figure 2). In the case of dried fins, however, the overall EU 160,000 a close second in global shark catches (Figure 1), landing contribution is very small, ranging from 8% in 1998 to 3% in All EU over 13% of shark meat worldwide in recent years (Table 1). 2009 of Hong Kong’s total imports (Hong Kong CSD, 2010). In 140,000 Indonesia The EU is also, according to FAO data, the world’s largest contrast, China’s imports of frozen shark fins from the EU ranged 120,000 trading partner for shark products and is responsible for 56% from 86% in 1998 to approximately 50% in 2009 (95–100% India 100,000 of total global shark imports from other States and for over of this is exported from Spain) (Hong Kong CSD, 2010). These Spain 30% of worldwide exports (FAO Fishstat). This relatively high fins originate from sharks caught by EU Member State vessels 80,000 Taiwan proportion may, to some extent, be inflated by the more all over the world, which are shipped to Europe (in the case of 60,000 France accurate reporting of shark meat imports by EU Member Spanish vessels, usually to the ports of Las Palmas in the Canary

Shark catch (tonnes) 40,000 States than in other fishing and trading States, but the EU is Islands, where Japanese longliners fishing in theA tlantic also Portugal 20,000 the world’s largest exporter of shark fins to the Hong Kong land fins, andV igo in Galicia), before being exported. United Kingdom Special Autonomous Region and to mainland China, the 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 biggest consumer market. (Clarke and Mosqueira (2002) China’s commodity import codes changed in 2000 to combine reported that, as of 1999, Hong Kong recorded imports of all fresh, chilled or frozen shark meat and fins under the same shark fin from at least 85 countries.) codes. Reported imports of frozen shark meat to mainland China have expanded four-fold since this change, reflecting either an Almost half of all EU shark exports come from Spain, which led increasing trend of declaring shark fins as shark meat and/or an shark bycatch in French purse seine tuna fisheries. The largest were issued SFPs to remove these species’ small, low-value world exports of frozen shark until exceeded by Taiwan in 2003 expanding market for frozen shark meat. Although these changes EU shark fisheries are undertaken by Spanish and Portuguese fins under permit, for landing with processed carcasses in Spain. (Table 2). The EU exports shark products primarily to Japan and to mean that it is more difficult to assess Spain’s current role as a pelagic freezer longline fleets, targeting swordfish and sharks The largest numbers of SFPs, however, are issued to Spanish China via Hong Kong (the latter is primarily shark fin), withR ussia contributor to the mainland China market for shark products, its (for meat and fins). Portugal’s elasmobranch landings have risen and Portuguese pelagic longline vessels. In contrast, the French (primarily shark meat) becoming a more important trading partner share of all frozen shark meat imported to Hong Kong has grown and Spanish pelagic freezer longline fleets have expanded out industry requested that no SFPs should be offered to any French in recent years (Oceanic Développement and MegaPesca, 2007). in the past few years and is now more than 40% of the total. of the Atlantic into Pacific and Indian Ocean fishing grounds. In vessels, including the purse seine fleet that lands some frozen Trade records do not indicate whether EU exports are of products Given the dominant share of Spain in the Hong Kong frozen-fin recent years, sharks have made up 50% of EU pelagic catches shark bycatch with fins still attached. SFP are no longer being caught by EU Member State vessels, or re-exported products market and the mainland China regulation in 2000 classifying in the Pacific and over 70% in theA tlantic. Of these, 80% are issued by the UK or Germany. originating from other countries. frozen shark fins as frozen shark meat, it is deduced that a blue shark (Prionace glauca) and 10% shortfin mako (Isurus sizeable portion of the Spanish frozen shark exports to mainland oxyrinchus). Threshers (Alopias spp.) and porbeagles are also Through its fisheries partnership agreements and other means Spain has also been the biggest single importer of shark meat China consist of fins. taken (but increasingly regulated), along with silky (Carcharhinus of global influence, the EU and some of its Member States have within the EU since 2000, responsible for 43% of total EU falciformis), hammerhead (Sphyrna spp.), and oceanic whitetip a significant role in the development of international fisheries imports. Eurostat also records a large amount of trade in shark Unknown quantities of unprocessed, frozen shark fins are also (Carcharhinus longimanus) sharks. policies (including finning prohibitions) and exercise considerable products between EU Member States. Strong European demand exported from the EU to other countries, including Singapore influence in RFMOs, the United Nations General Assembly, and for shark meat may reduce the economic incentive for EU (en route to processing factories in Malaysia and Indonesia), Under the provisions of the EU Shark Finning Regulation, which in many developing countries. Member State vessels to fin sharks, particularly if fishermen can and perhaps other Asian countries (e.g. Philippines) for primary is described in section 7, Special Fishing Permits (SFPs) may land directly into European ports. processing and drying prior to re-export for secondary processing be issued by Member States to authorise their flag vessels to remove fins from sharks at sea.V essels without such permits are required to land sharks with fins still attached. Some UK Table 2 | Top 10 shark product* exporters during 1997-2006 (Source: FAO Fishstat) and German vessels targeting sharks in the Northeast Atlantic Country 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Average Spain 12,383 17,462 17,963 16,539 12,377 11,555 11,555 11,552 13,737 14,742 13,987 Taiwan 2,705 2,198 3,105 4,403 9,716 10,630 17,161 15,095 19,109 23,764 10,789 US 9,241 6,854 6,636 6,319 3,669 4,068 3,011 2,339 2,491 3,059 4,769 Japan 3,228 3,792 3,921 3,576 3,258 3,716 4,087 4,841 5,339 4,143 3,990 Panama - 70 215 4,450 7,462 5,859 3,714 4,899 5,353 3,433 3,939 Costa Rica 616 532 886 3,858 7,658 6,593 5,757 4,132 5,104 3,595 3,873 Canada 2,844 3,107 1,895 3,123 4,446 4,594 4,197 4,142 3,197 3,716 3,526 Through its fisheries partnership agreements and other means of global New 2,569 2,337 4,289 3,926 3,203 3,928 3,492 2,823 3,835 3,941 3,434 influence, the EU and some of its Member States have a significant role in the Zealand development of international fisheries policies (including finning prohibitions) UK 1,997 3,314 3,142 3,447 5,306 4,489 3,947 3,654 3,195 1,307 3,380 and exercise considerable influence in RFMOs, the United Nations General China 2,433 2,047 2,134 2,237 1,845 2,282 2,450 2,587 1,548 1,106 2,067 Assembly, and in many developing countries. *primarily meat and fin

6 Shark fins in Europe | NOVEMBER 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 7 3

elsewhere (Clarke 2003). Recorded shark product exports to 3.1 Shark fin products and processing Hong Kong and China therefore very likely under-represent total Figure 3 | Primary (dark grey) and secondary (light grey) shark fin sets exports from the EU. Considerable quantities of fins also transit Shark fin products through the EU (e.g. dried fins from WestA frica pass through Shark fins are the critical ingredient for shark fin soup, a very The caudal fin may be cut off the France en route to Asia). important and highly priced traditional, celebratory, Chinese dish. First dorsal body at any point within this area The parts used in this dish are the fine, noodle-like fin rays or fin (primary) Although the trade is global, with fin-buyers in every major port, ‘needles’. Processors must remove all meat, skin and cartilage Second dorsal there are key points of trade and export. For example, Spanish from the fins to extract these valuable products. The translucent fin (secondary) and Portuguese longline freezer fleets prefer to export most shark fin needles are then dried before sale, sometimes in the form fins through Las Palmas or Vigo. Fins landed from Spanish and of fin nets. This is a specialised, labour-intensive process that is Portuguese vessels outside Europe (e.g. in Montevideo, Uruguay) not undertaken anywhere in Europe. Shark fins landed in Europe Upper caudal are therefore initially shipped back to Las Palmas or Vigo before are therefore shipped to Hong Kong en route to China (the main lobe (secondary) being exported from Spain to China or Japan, rather than being location for processing), or sometimes to Singapore or other East sold directly to any of the fin traders operating in Montevideo Asian States. for export directly from Uruguay (Andrés Domingo, DINARA, Pectoral fins Pelvic fins Anal fin Lower caudal Uruguay, pers. comm.). Fin value varies according to species of shark (hence the quality (primary, two) (secondary, two) (secondary) lobe (primary) and abundance of fin needles), the fin position (the lower caudal The complex system of fin imports, exports and re-exports, the lobe of the tail has very dense fin needles and is particularly

tendency for detached fins not to be landed and marketed in valuable), and the size of fins (larger fins contain longer fin rays S FOWLER the same way as carcasses, and incomplete recording through and are more valuable). customs codes for shark fin, make it difficult to track and quantify this trade. The most valuable fins are auctioned in ‘fin sets’ (usually the four source of fin rays for shark fin soup because it contains primarily largest primary fins: two pectorals, first dorsal and the lower the cartilaginous vertebral column, small quantities of meat and caudal from the same shark) to processors in Hong Kong. Other only a few short fin rays. It can be used, but only for lower value fins, the smaller anal, pelvic, second dorsal or upper caudal products. The lower lobe represents about 18–20% of the wet Figure 2 | Shark fin imports to Hong Kong 1998-2009 showing the proportions derived from (Figure 3) are also traded, but are less valuable and are never weight of the whole tail, but comprises 70–75% of its total value non-EU countries, EU countries other than Spain, and Spain (Hong Kong CDS, 2010) auctioned in sets. Even the largest fins traded through Spain (in litt., Mr C. Lim, Sharkfin and Marine Products Association, from European fleets, however, are not exported in fin sets, but Hong Kong, 9 April 2010). in bags sorted by size (the largest are most valuable), species 7,000 (hammerheads are more valuable than makos, followed by large Fin cuts Dried blues), and by fin position (pectoral, dorsal and caudal fins are Different fin cuts are used to prepare air-dried and frozen shark 6,000 sold separately from bags of small secondary fins), as shown in fins for export. Removing meat is particularly important to avoid 5,000 Table 3. spoilage of fins that will be air-dried, and buyers prefer fins that are removed using a ‘half moon’ cut to minimise quantities 4,000 Most European fisheries export the entire caudal fin (tail) of of flesh and basal cartilage at the base of each fin (Figure 4). 3,000 landed sharks, while many fisheries in other parts of the world In contrast, large quantities of meat can be left on frozen fins

Metric tonnes discard the low value upper lobe, which is not an important without risk of tainting, and crude cutting is common in frozen 2,000

1,000 KEY

Non EU Table 3 | Mean price (€kg) during January – March 2010 for straight-cut frozen shark fin delivered wholesale from the EU to 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 main Asian ports (Source: Spanish processing company price lists, 2010) Spain Fin classification Fin size (pectoral, dorsal, caudal) Price €/kg 6,000 Frozen EU - not Spain Hammerhead – 27.50 5,000 Mako shark 1 P(>30cm) D(>20cm) C lobe (>30cm) 24.50 4,000 Mako shark 2 P(20-30cm) D (10-20cm) C lobe (20-30cm) 15.50 3,000 Blue shark 1 P(>50cm) D(>25cm) C(>60cm) 12.30

2,000

Metric tonnes Blue shark 2 P(40-50cm) D(20-25cm) C(50-60cm) 10.58

1,000 Blue shark 3 P(25-40cm) D(15-20cm) C(35-50cm) 8.45

0 Blue shark 4 P(<25cm) D(<15cm) C(<35cm) 7.17 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Thresher shark – 8.13 Anal fins – 7.65

8 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 9 3

fins exported from Spain and Portugal. Because it is the fine by buyers on the proper cutting of fins and handling to minimise Furthermore, the small secondary fins that may be discarded fin rays from inside these fins that are the most valuable part, spoilage or know such techniques and methods from fishing in from some fisheries (because they are not included in the however, many experienced shark fishermen will always use a the US east or Gulf coast fisheries. They know, for example, that valuable fin sets) contribute an additional 11% of the total weight half moon cut to remove fins, and will also avoid including the the usual practice is to retain for sale the dorsal, two pectorals, of blue shark fins landed. Finally, the majority of the fins landed caudal peduncle at the base of the tail, which only contains and lower caudal fins, strung together as a set. While some in Spain are crude cut (Figures 4 and 5) and have a significant vertebrae and meat. newer crew might think that they will get paid more by weight amount of meat attached at the base. This is waste that does if they leave some meat on the fin, they quickly learn that not contain any fin needles. In some cases this can make up a Fishermen who are not familiar with processing methods or discriminating buyers deduct for such practices.” large proportion of the fin weight (40% or more of the weight of the end product that processors are seeking do not bother to packages of small secondary fins may be lost when the excess a minimise the quantities of meat and cartilage that they leave Most finning bans rely upon a fin:carcass weight ratio in an flesh attached to the fins is removed prior to export from Spain). attached to each fin. Indeed, many maximise these volumes attempt to ensure that fins and bodies are landed in appropriate through intentional crude cutting in order to increase the weight proportions that, in theory, should prevent finning. The ratio Cost-benefit of crude fin cuts of the fin products that they land, on the assumption that this obtained, however, depends upon the cutting technique used, The financial cost to fishermen of using crude fin cuts is not only will increase their profits (e.g. McCoy and Ishihara 1999). This with ‘crude cutting’ significantly increasing the fin:carcass weight that fin quality and price is reduced, but also the quality and the appears to be fairly common practice on the European vessels ratio. Blue shark fin weights observed on European vessels range value of the flesh of the shark carcass from which the fins have that hold SFPs to remove fins on board.A lthough this might from 3% to 12% of whole weight, depending on the cutting been removed (Rose, 1996, Rose and McLoughlin, 2001). These also be the result of rapid cutting on deck because time is short practices on board (Mejuto et al., 2009). Some excess meat is considerations led to the promotion of a whole-shark landing while the catch is being brought on board, similar crude cuts are trimmed and discarded onshore before export to Asia; the rest policy by buyers and fishermen in someA ustralian fisheries that seen onshore when sharks are landed with fins still attached is removed in Asia before the auctions at which fin processors was subsequently translated into legislation mandating whole (Santana Garcon et al., in preparation), also possibly due to a lack purchase these raw materials. landings of shark catches. Crude cutting of fins also increases b of understanding of fin processing and end products. These cuts the cost of processing, whether the fins are trimmed in the EU do not cause the fins to spoil if they are kept on ice or frozen, but The US Atlantic Shark fishery was one of many fisheries that before being exported, or a heavier, bulkier untrimmed product prices paid for badly trimmed fins will likely be reduced to take usually only retained the lower lobe of the caudal fin and is shipped to Asia where the cost of labour for trimming is account of the excess weight of waste material that has been discarded the upper part, which is four times as heavy as the lower. Regardless, the extra cost of processing and/or transport included and perhaps also the subsequent cost of removing this. lower lobe. Some shark fisheries retain both lobes of the caudal is presumably reflected in lower prices paid to fishermen. fin, because it is difficult to remove the lower caudal fin without Fishermen’s perceptions of the financial benefit gained by McCoy and Ishihara (1999) describe the cutting of shark fins in damaging it, but they trim away as much of the low value caudal producing a greater weight of fins through the use of crude cuts Pacific shark fisheries: “Most crew have either been instructed peduncle as possible in order to minimise its weight. In contrast, may be illusory.

There is considerable potential for improving fin cutting practices Figure 4 | Different methods of cutting fins in European fleets, whether under the existing derogation that c permits fins to be removed on board, or onshore if carcasses are landed with fins still attached. The advantages for fishermen Figure 5 | Examples of caudal fin cuts in different of improved cutting practices should include receiving higher fisheries prices for better quality fin sets and carcasses, while the costs 5a. Lower caudal fin lobes are removed from these sharks to processors of trimming fins prior to export and/or exporting landed in South America (J Martinez). heavier lower-value products would be reduced. Despite this, 5b. Caudal fins retained on a Korean vessel in the Pacific however, it is likely to be difficult to persuade all fishermen to Ocean (Soon-Song et al. 2007). Much of the caudal change their long-established fin cutting practices in order to peduncle has been removed. conform with the specified fin:carcass ratio regulation for any 5c. Entire caudal fin and caudal peduncle retained in a given fishery. Spanish fishery (J Santana-Garcon). Fin:carcass ratios Hareide et al., 2007 reviewed the size and range of all published fin:carcass weight ratios and other conversion factors for shark Spanish and Portuguese fishermen not only retain the whole products by species, fisheries and processing techniques.A caudal fin but also include a significant amount of the caudal more recent survey of fin preparation prior to export from Spain peduncle, increasing its weight still further. Figure 5 illustrates by Santana-Garcon et al., (in preparation 2010), presented in a these three cutting techniques. separate report, provides some new data that complement the earlier study. Santana Garcon et al., (in preparation 2010) determined that caudal fins landed inV igo comprised almost 44% of the total Because blue shark is predominant in EU landings and is the weight of fins from each blue shark. Most of this (~35% of subject of the largest data sets, both of the above studies total fin weight) is made up from the caudal peduncle and focused primarily on this species. When data on fin:carcass ratios 1992 A fter S ubasinge upper caudal lobe that may not be landed by other fisheries. for other species were lacking from EU fisheries, information

10 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 11 3 Implementing finning bans 4

from other fisheries was used.A verage fin:carcass weight ratios weight ratio for individual blue sharks obtained by 45 vessels The world’s first shark finning ban was adopted in 1993 in reported for most species occurring in EU fisheries were lower studied in the Spanish fleet ranged from 3% to 12%, with vessel the Shark Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for US Atlantic Figure 6 | Partially cut fins than the 5% whole weight allowed by the EU Finning Regulation means ranging from 5% to 8%, highlighting the importance of waters, following consultation with industry and other (see section 7). The blue shark, however, has the highest mean the different cutting techniques used by individual fishermen in stakeholders (NMFS 1993). As part of the development of fin to whole weight ratio identified in EU MS shark landings, with producing this variation. this measure, scientists measured the fin:carcass dressed an average ratio of 6.4% of whole weight. Fin to dressed weight weight ratios for a variety of shark species on board vessels ratios for blue shark were also high, average 14%. These ratios Whatever the reason for using the crude cuts described above, in the Atlantic commercial shark fishery. The FMP adopted a

were only reported from Spanish and Portuguese fleets, which the results are heavier fins, a lighter carcass and a higher maximum fin to dressed carcass weight ratio that was very . org . pretoma appear to have similar processing techniques, and are about three fin:whole carcass ratio. near the upper limit of the range of values collected in this times higher than the ratios obtained for blue sharks by other mixed fishery. Fishermen were also required to offload and www pelagic fleets operating in theA tlantic and Indo-Pacific (Hareide et In addition to these minor variations, which arise from the weigh fins and carcasses together. Unloading of frozen sharks from a Costa Rican freezer longliner. The fins are partially cut but still attached and tied on the body. al., 2007, Santana-Garcon et al., in preparation 2010). removal of different types of fins with different cuts, there is (April 25, 2007, Dock Coopeimpesa, Puntarenas, Costa Rica.) even greater variation in the fin:dressed carcass weights that A small number of other shark-fishing States had adopted finning In addition to cutting techniques and numbers of fins removed, are obtained in different fleets and between different vessels. bans, mostly modelled on the US Atlantic example, by the time variations in fin:carcass weight ratios arise from differences in These arise because ‘dressed’ carcasses may be landed in many the UN FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and allowed through SFPs that allow fins to be removed on board. morphology between species. For example, the fin to whole different forms. The carcass may simply be eviscerated (removing Management of Sharks was adopted in 1998. This non-binding, weight ratio among the four large coastal and pelagic sharks about 25% of the whole weight), or also beheaded. Additionally, voluntary initiative called on States to ensure conservation and The advantages of keeping shark fins attached include: landed by the US Atlantic Shark Fishery ranged from 2.55% for the belly flaps and part of the trunk anterior to the gills may also management of sharks, including inter alia “minimising waste  Enforcement burden is reduced because fins and carcasses dusky shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus), to 2.16% for blue shark, be removed. Finally, the carcass may be skinned and/or filleted. and discards from shark catches... for example, requiring the do not need to be weighed separately (any detached fin found 1.77% for shortfin mako, and 1.45% for silky sharks (Baremore These treatments remove much more of the carcass weight, until retention of sharks from which fins are removed”. In addition to on board a fishing vessel is illegal). et al., (unpublished), cited by Cortés and Neer (2006)). There possibly only 40% of the original whole shark weight is retained. preventing unacceptable levels of waste, this measure aimed at  Calculation, decisions and alterations regarding ratios for are even very small differences in ratios between age classes Such intensive processing significantly increases the fin:dressed reducing levels of shark mortality and preventing unsustainable different species, fisheries or onboard processing techniques of the same species of shark. The lowest EU fin ratio identified carcass weight ratio of the final products landed. exploitation. are unnecessary. was 1.6% fin:whole weight, for deep-water shark fisheries that  ‘High-grading’ (mixing carcasses and fins from different only retain the caudal fins with carcasses, or 3.6% when all fins Variations in processing practices result not only in different By end of 2009, more than 20 countries, the EU (27 Member animals) is impossible. are retained. In contrast, as noted above, the fin:whole weight conversion factors in different fisheries, but also between States) and eight RFMOs had approved shark finning bans,  Species-specific monitoring of landings is much easier (finned ratio for blue sharks observed in the Spanish and Portuguese vessels in the same fleet. These issues illustrate the difficulties described in the following pages. These prohibitions mostly carcasses can be hard to identify, particularly if beheaded), fleets averages over 6% (e.g. Mejuto et al., 2009). Some EU associated with using any form of fin:carcass weight ratio to employ a maximum fin:carcass weight ratio (the majority based and information on species and quantities of sharks landed fishermen have therefore argued that the 5% whole weight implement and monitor compliance with a shark on the original US or the EU ratio) but may not specify whether is vastly improved (these data are important for stock ratio set by the EU Regulation (see section 7), despite being finning prohibition. the ratio pertains to whole or dressed weight. During the past assessments and science-based fisheries management). significantly larger than the ratio observed for blue sharks in the decade, problems with implementation have resulted in changes  Land-based processing of carcasses can include careful US Atlantic fishery, forces fishermen to discard excess fins at to the methods used to implement finning bans, with a growing and precise fin cutting, increasing the value of the finished sea. This large discrepancy arises because of the significantly number moving towards requiring that sharks be landed with product; whole shark landings to maximise value are required different processing practices in these two fleets, particularly their fins still attached. Similar implementation issues are by some shark processors, including EU porbeagle shark the retention of the upper caudal lobe by Iberian vessels. In currently being discussed within the EU. buyers, and buyers of other high value shark species in fact, the greatest variation occurs between different vessels in Kesennuma (Japan), Su’Ao (Taiwan) and some Australian the latter fleet. Mejuto et al., 2009 report that the fin:carcass This section describes the main methods that are currently being states. applied to enforce shark finning bans and lists the various shark fishing entities and RFMOs that are known to have adopted each Some fishermen argue that sharks frozen with their fins still of these options. More information on these regulations, where intact would take up too much hold space and would be difficult, available, is summarised in Annex I. even dangerous, to handle and offload because of the sharp, protruding fins. Lack and Sant (2006) report “there is a strong 4.1 Keeping fins attached perception that requiring fins to remain attached to the trunk is Sharks are commonly landed with fins intact for processing not a feasible option for most high seas fishing operations where onshore all over the world, both in countries with finning the trunk needs to be frozen.” Techniques to address these regulations and in those without such rules. Requiring that fins be problems have, however, been developed in fisheries in Central There is considerable potential for improving fin cutting practices in landed still naturally attached to each carcass is the basis for the America, where shark fins are partially severed and folded flush European fleets, whether under the existing derogation that permits fins finning prohibitions inA ustralian federal longline tuna and billfish along the carcass, thereby enabling safe and efficient freezing fisheries and shark fisheries and in someA ustralian state waters, and storage (see Box 2 and Figure 6). El Salvador’s finning to be removed on board, or onshore if carcasses are landed with fins still in Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Oman, Panama prohibition drew upon practical experience in Costa Rica and attached. The advantages for fishermen of improved cutting practices should (other than for small artisanal vessels, who must land fins and specifies that at least ¼ of the fin base must remain attached. include receiving higher prices for better quality fin sets and carcasses, while carcasses to a maximum 5% ratio), and the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters of the US (a Bill to extend this measure to all US In the case of Costa Rican and US Atlantic shark fisheries, rules to the costs to processors of trimming fins prior to export and/or exporting waters is awaiting a Senate vote). This is also the basic premise keep fins naturally attached to all shark carcasses landed replaced heavier lower-value products would be reduced. underlying the EU Finning Regulation, although derogation is other, less effective methods used initially to implement finning

12 Shark fins in Europe | NOVEMBER 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 13 4

prohibitions. The new US Atlantic policy, adopted in 2008, followed the experience of their fishing industries demonstrates that this secondary fins (as undertaken in some UE MS fisheries) in addition Confirmation that this is an appropriate ratio for this fishery comes 15 years of experience with a 5% fin:dressed carcass weight method is feasible. In addition, one of Hong Kong’s largest fin to the largest primary fin set, and time-consuming enforcement at from the University of Florida Commercial Shark Fishery Observer ratio. Costa Rica had tested a range of fin:dressed carcass weight processors has stated that removing fins from shark carcasses landing sites (it would be necessary to match and/or count every fin Program (CSFOP). CSFOP collected data on fin and carcass ratios and the reattachment of fins onto carcasses following is best done when the carcass is frozen hard, because it is much set and every carcass in order to monitor compliance). weights from more than 27,000 sharks of 28 species taken in the the adoption of its finning ban in 2001, identifying serious easier to control the cut (in litt., Mr C. Lim, The Sharkfin and US Atlantic coastal fishery during 1994-2002 (Cortes andN eer shortcomings with both of these options before confirming a ‘fins Marine Products Association, Hong Kong, 9 April 2010). This method is applied in the Western Australian shark fishery, 2006). The overall fin:carcass ratio was 4.90% for ‘dressed’ sharks naturally attached’ regulation in 2006 (see Box 2). which is exploited by relatively few licensed vessels landing in – with head, entrails and fins removed. This indicates that the use a small number of well-monitored locations. For example, all of 5% in the US Atlantic allows considerable flexibility for species- Some EU fishing industry representatives have voiced concern 4.2 Limiting the numbers of fins landed per carcass parts of a shark except for the head, tail or viscera (which can specific variation in fin:carcass weights, enabling a high proportion that shark fins must be removed before carcasses are frozen be discarded at sea) must be landed together in the Western of sandbar sharks (a species whose fins comprise over 5% of the on board, claiming it would not be possible to remove them at The option of specifying a maximum number of fins per carcass Australian Joint Authority Northern Shark Fishery, which involves dressed weight) to be landed alongside other species. landing sites without defrosting the carcasses and that options for landed was discussed during the consultation prior to the six vessels. Compliance is monitored by counting the number of the onward shipment of either product in a frozen condition would introduction of a finning ban under theU S Atlantic Shark Plan pectoral and/or dorsal fins and comparing these with the number This ratio has also been found to be adequate to allow all desired be reduced. Further, EU fishing interests have suggested that the (NMFS, 1993). A proposed limit of five detached fins per carcass (and size) of carcasses landed. This example suggests that limiting fins to be landed from shark fisheries in New Zealand (ICCAT, quality and value of fins that are removed from frozen carcasses was rejected for several reasons. Potential problems identified the number of shark fins landed per carcass can be a feasible 2004), Australia (Rose and McLoughlin, 2001), Canada (DFO, is reduced. Several countries, however, now require fins to remain included retention of large fins from large sharks alongside small method of enforcing a finning ban if shark landings are small (if, 2001), and from deepwater shark fisheries in the Northeast attached until after landing, including Costa Rica (Box 2), and shark carcasses (high grading), prevention of fishermen landing small for example, there is a bag limit of only five or 10 animals per boat Atlantic (Hareide et al., 2007). trip), or applied to a small number of vessels in a strictly regulated and closely monitored fishery. It is not always clear whether the percentage ratio mandated in a Box 2 | Costa Rica case study national finning regulation refers to dressed carcasses or whole Namibia’s Shark Management Plan also requires that all shark fins bodies, when these terms are not precisely defined.F or example, In February 2001, under pressure from fishermen and body. Fisheries officers of the Instituto Costarricense de landed must have the corresponding number of trunks onboard; Brazil’s finning regulation P( ortaria 121 1998) refers to “peso das conservationists, the Costa Rican government adopted Pesca y Acuicultura (INCOPESCA), however, interpreted this is to be checked by the Inspectorate when boats offload. carcaças desembarcadas” (weight of unloaded carcasses) – without a finning ban regulation requiring that all sharks must “attached” as meaning that the fins could be separated from However, details of the number of fins required per carcass or other specifying whether this should be the whole or dressed weight. be landed with fins attached (AJDIP/47-2001). However, the body, provided that they were tied back upon landing. information on the implementation of this measure are unknown. Nicaragua’s regulation (Decreto 9-2005) refers to “peso total de los evidence of continued uncontrolled landings of shark fins cuerpos de los tiburones capturados y encontrados a bordo” (total by foreign vessels in the Pacific port of Puntarenas led to In July 2005, Costa Rica’s Attorney General ruled that weight of shark bodies captured and retained on board). several non-governmental organisations calling on the INCOPECSA’s policy of allowing fins to be landed tied onto 4.3 Limiting fin:body weight ratio government to declare a moratorium on the landing of shark shark bodies violated Article 40 of the Fishery Law and that South Africa has adopted two different ratios for fins:dressed fins by foreign vessels until mechanisms had been adopted INCOPESCA must require that fins are landed attached in Despite a trend toward keeping fins attached, limiting the carcass weight: 5% for foreign vessels and 8% for its domestic to enforce the regulation. “natural” form. In this binding ruling, the Attorney General fin:carcass weight to a specified ratio is still the most widely fleet, since the latter dresses sharks at sea into ‘fillets’, discarding clarified that allowing fins to be tied back onto carcasses used means of enforcing finning prohibitions today. This method more material than vessels that land dressed carcasses in The government acknowledged that shark fin trade was opens numerous loopholes that facilitate shark finning has been adopted by the EU, by the majority of States and by all the form of ‘trunks’. Spain’s national finning prohibition (now uncontrolled, despite the finning ban, and that an improved (e.g. tying extra fins to each body or tying large fins to RFMOs that prohibit finning. superseded by the EU Regulation) did not specify a precise regulation was needed. This new regulation (AJDIP/415-2003) small bodies), makes at-sea controls against shark finning weight ratio, but required documentation when fins and entered into force in November 2003. It allowed shark fins impossible, and severely complicates controls at dockside. The ratio most widely applied is 5% of wet fin weight to carcasses were separated. to be landed separately from the carcass, provided that ‘dressed’ (gutted and beheaded) carcass weight, which is roughly their weight corresponded to a specified fin-to-body-weight In September 2005, INCOPESCA appealed against the equivalent to 2% of wet fin weight to whole shark (‘round’ The EU Finning Regulation uses a 5% fin to whole weight ratio. These fin:carcass weight ratios differed according to July ruling, requesting that it be reconsidered. In January or ‘live’) weight. This ratio was based on commercial shark ratio, the highest weight ratio in existence. Member States are the fin cutting methods used, ranging from 7.7% to 12.7% 2006, the Attorney General rejected INCOPESCA’s request practices in the US Atlantic (NMFS, 1993) when sandbar sharks expected to “establish the theoretical correspondence between depending upon the quantities of meat left attached to the and reconfirmed that in order to apply the Fishery Law, (Carcharhinus obscurus), a species with large fins, dominated weights of fins and bodies… taking into account the type of fins. These were higher than those recommended by the INCOPESCA must require shark fins to be landed attached the shark landings. As noted above, NMFS scientists sampled fishery, the species composition and the type of processing majority of international experts and the IUCN SSC (Species in natural form. INCOPESCA filed yet another appeal, sharks dressed at sea under commercial fishing conditions in the and storage.” Survival Commission) Shark Specialist Group (ratios which was again rejected in June 2006. In August 2006, the Northwest Atlantic and calculated a range of fin:dressed carcass of 2% fin:whole (whole body) weight or 5% fin:dressed Costa Rican fins-attached system, which requires fins to be weight ratios for different species, from 2.53% for silky sharks The main problem with a theoretical ratio is that this can never carcass weight had been found to be appropriate in other landed naturally attached to shark carcasses, became fully to 5.33% for sandbar sharks, with the latter significantly higher be measured by comparing the weights of the fins and carcasses commercial fisheries for most large shark species). implemented. This ruling applies equally to fresh and to than most other species. The average fin:whole weight ratio that are landed; logbooks provide the only record of whole frozen sharks landed in Costa Rica. produced by this study was 1.69%. The fin:carcass weight ratio weights retained and these can never be verified in port. In May 2005, Costa Rica’s new Fisheries Law (Law No. adopted in the Atlantic Shark Fisheries Management Plan, and 8436) was passed. Article 40 mandates that all sharks be To comply with this regulation when landing frozen later in the US Shark Finning Prohibition Act, was set at 5%, near In most cases around the world, there is a requirement for landed with their respective fins attached, thus eliminating carcasses, Costa Rican fishermen have developed a partial the upper limit recorded for sharks taken in a mixed fishery that detached fins and carcasses to be landed together so that the fin-to-body-weight ratio system. Article 139 imposes a cut that allows fins to be folded and laid flat against the body was dominated by the species with the largest fins.A lthough this implementation of the regulation can be properly monitored sentence of two years in prison, to whomever allows, orders to ease handling and maximise storage space on board fishery has now adopted a fins-attached policy for all landings, the and enforced. In these cases, compliance checks are moderately or authorises the landing of shark fins without the respective (see Figure 6). 5% ratio is retained for monitoring compliance after processing at time-consuming because ratio determination requires all shark landings sites. products on board to be weighed. Compliance checks are not

14 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 15 4 RFMO finning regulations 5

possible if fins and carcasses are landed in different ports, which is landed and compliance monitoring is poor. The WPEB reiterated The Regional Fisheries Management Organisations weight based on EU ratios), while illegally finning more than half permitted only by the EU Finning Regulation for vessels with SFPs. their advice again in 2009, clearly recommending “fins naturally (RFMOs) that have adopted legally binding measures of all the sharks that they catch. attached”. Following this, the Scientific Committee suggested (termed Recommendations or Resolutions depending on in 2009 that the Compliance Committee should consider the the RFMO) to prohibit shark finning are: the International Furthermore, the above calculations refer to wet fins.I f shark 4.4 Reattaching fins mechanism for solving the shark finning problem. Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT fins are detached and dried on board ship, which is common in (the first in 2004), the General Fisheries Commission of the the Asian distant water fleets, the conversion factor changes Permitting fins to be tied back onto carcasses after removal Mediterranean (GFCM), Indian Ocean Tuna Commission significantly.F or example, NMFS/NEFSC (1992) reports that the on board was briefly applied in Costa Rica as an alternative 4.5 Other methods (IOTC), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), ratio for blue shark fin weight to whole carcass weight is 2% for interpretation of this State’s ‘fins attached’ regulation (Box 2). This North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), Southeast wet fins but only 0.6% for dried fins.N one of the RFMO finning measure resulted in considerable concern that high grading of Information was not available on the precise methods currently Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO), Western Central regulations specify whether they apply to wet or dried fins. This fins was taking place and hindering compliance monitoring. The being used to implement and monitor compliance with shark Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Northeast is a significant omission given that eight dried fin sets weigh less intent of the Costa Rican regulation was subsequently clarified as finning prohibitions in a few States, including CapV erde or Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). The Commission than 5% of the weight of a single whole shark carcass. The RFMO fins being naturally attached in order to close this loophole. Congo-Brazzaville. for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources ratio could therefore be complied with by vessels that are finning (CCAMLR) has prohibited targeted shark fishing, but does and discarding seven out of eight sharks, if the fins that have been Variations of this strategy were proposed unsuccessfully by the Other States or other entities have simply prohibited all shark not prohibit the finning of bycatch. removed are then dried on board. European Community and Australia at the 2009 annual meeting fishing or targeted shark fishing in their exclusive economic of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), as an alternative zones. These include Egypt (within the Egyptian waters of the All of the finning regulations adopted by RFMOs, which largely In reality, however, compliance monitoring and enforcement to the weight ratio currently being applied. The proposals were Red Sea), French Polynesia (except for shortfin makos), Honduras mirror the text adopted by ICCAT (see Annex II), are enforced of RFMO finning bans is extremely limited in most areas. opposed by conservation and animal welfare groups, as well as (where a moratorium on shark fishing is in place “until research through a maximum fin:carcass weight ratio. These ratios Although there are occasional high seas boarding and inspection by scientists and recreational fishermen. This option had also has been completed that will allow a responsible management (all of which are currently identical) have, however, needed procedures, these are rare. Most vessels do not have observers been offered by the IOTC Scientific Committee in 2008, as an plan” and a ban on finning coastal species is being developed), to accommodate the different standards adopted by their on board, port state inspections are uncommon in Asia and the alternative to the advice of the 2008 IOTC Working Party on Israel, the Federated States of Micronesia, Maldives and Palau. Contracting Parties. The common wording of RFMO finning bans PacificI slands, and most CPCs have not yet reported on their Ecosystems and Bycatch (WPEB) for fins attached. While this Norway has banned discards completely; regulations require that states that Contracting Parties, Cooperating non-Contracting compliance with these measures. It is therefore unknown whether approach might be workable for well-managed and intensively all sharks be landed. These measures are not finning prohibitions Parties and other bodies (CPCs): “Shall require their vessels to or to what extent the loopholes described above are being used to monitored fisheries in which only small numbers (e.g. 5 to10 per per se and are not considered further in this report. have on board fins that total no more than 5% of the weight of enable a certain amount of shark finning to continue while vessels trip) of sharks are landed and monitoring compliance is therefore sharks on board, up to the first point of landing”. might, if inspected, appear to comply with the bans. easy (as in some Australian fisheries), it would be very much harder to implement when large numbers of sharks are being Using the terminology “sharks retained on board”, without It follows from the above that the fin to body weight ratio adopted specifying whether this applies to whole weight or processed is “a key determinant of the effectiveness of the shark finning carcasses, was adopted by ICCAT in order to account for the bans currently in place” (Lack & Sant, 2006). As such, fin:carcass Box 3 | Development of the EU Shark Finning Regulation discrepancies between finning regulations in the EU and the US. ratios have regularly been discussed by ICCAT’s Standing This compromise was reached following the EU’s successful Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), IATTC’s Working The European Commission conducted a thorough fins. Furthermore, separate landings of fins and carcasses efforts to amend the original ICCAT shark finning proposal Group on Stock Assessment, and IOTC’s Scientific Committee and consultation on the EU Shark Finning Regulation prior in different ports were also allowed for vessels with SFPs. presented by the US, which sought to set a 5% fin:dressed Working Party on Bycatch. All have expressed serious reservations to its adoption in 2003. During this process, the measure carcass weight ratio, to accommodate the EU’s 5% fin:whole about the formulation of the finning prohibition and the general changed from a simple ban on the removal of shark fins The derogation available under the EU Finning Regulation, weight ratio. The result is, for example, that US vessels may application of a 5% ratio, as described in the examples below. on board vessels (which is the measure now increasingly (European Commission, 2003) differs from other retain fins to a maximum whole weight ratio of some 2% (a being recommended and adopted under new and revised regulations based on weight ratios in three respects: 5% ratio of fins to dressed carcasses on board, after viscera For example, ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and finning bans) to the current regulation that includes a  It specifies a maximum landing size of 5% of whole and heads have been discarded). EU Member State vessels Statistics (2006) noted that: derogation that allows for on-board fin removal under weight, which is equivalent to some 11–15% of dressed may retain more than twice that (vessels in the Portuguese “…owing to the different species of sharks that may be caught Special Fishing Permits (SFP). In the time since adoption, weight (depending upon dressing techniques). This is fleet retain a weight ratio of 12% of fins to dressed blue shark or targeted by the different fisheries of the world, which are likely the SFP exception has become the rule for the fleets of the significantly higher than similar regulations adopted by carcasses under the generous provisions of the EU Regulation to have different fin-to-body weight ratios, and the varying fish two major EU shark fishing countries (Spain and Portugal). other States. (COM(2005)700)). preparation and utilization criteria on board the different fleets, it  It does not mandate a fin:dressed carcass weight ratio would not appear to be advisable to establish universal fin-to-body The maximum fin ratio was, in early drafts, “not to exceed for post-processing enforcement. Each vessel is required to conform to the national regulation of weight ratios. Consequently to be effective, these regulations must 5% of the total weight of the remaining parts of shark after  It is the only Regulation identified that allows separate its flag State, even when on the high seas. The imprecise RFMO take into account the species of sharks and the fleet behavior… evisceration and beheading”, and required all fins and landings or transhipments of carcasses and fins. finning ban texts present a loophole for finning if CPCs without a other parts to be landed or transhipped together. This is domestic finning regulation apply and/or seek to adopt the more “the accuracy of conversion factors is vital for estimating catches... the same as the majority of other finning bans that apply The differences between the fin:carcass ratios mandated generous EU interpretation of the RFMO fin ratio allowance, a weight ratio. However, it was subsequently amended to under EU and other State regulations has weakened the while actually retaining fin products processed according to the “Fin-to-body-weight ratios can significantly affect the catch the current mandatory upper ratio of 5% of live (or whole) common finning bans for shared and high seas fisheries practices that are used by most other fleets.A ny vessels that estimation and ultimately influence assessment results… weight, in order to accommodate the higher ratios obtained under the jurisdiction of RFMOs, as discussed elsewhere only retain the most valuable primary fins sets, cut to remove all when the entire caudal fin is retained and significant (for more information, see section 5). flesh, could potentially keep the wet fins sets from two or three “The SCRS thus recommends that conversion factors between amounts of flesh from the carcass are left attached to the sharks but only one carcass, and still theoretically comply with the fins and body weights be developed and implemented on a the RFMO 5% ratio (if interpreted as 12% of dressed carcass species- and/or fleet specific basis.”

16 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 17 5 International advice 6

IATTC’s Working Group on Stock Assessment (IATTC, 2006) also fins with carcasses towards promoting a “fins-naturally-attached” A series of Resolutions adopted annually by the United Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation identified several problems with the use of a 5% ratio of fins to approach for implementing finning bans. For example, the IOTC Nations General Assembly (UNGA), 2003–2009, and by and Management of Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish body weight, including those already addressed in this report: WPEB (2008, 2009) has recommended that the 5% fin to body recent meetings of the IUCN World Conservation Congress Stocks discussed actions to improve the status of shark stocks. “It is not specified if the standard applies to the wet or dry weight ratio measure be replaced with a resolution requiring have urged States and RFMOs to extend finning bans more Proposals included requiring sharks to be landed with their fins weight of the fins or to the whole fin or just what is sold on the sharks to be landed with fins naturally attached to the body. These widely and move towards a ‘fins naturally attached’ landings attached as a tool to strengthen enforcement and monitoring of market”; and “it is not specified if the standard applies to the recommendations have been discussed by the IOTC Scientific policy to close existing loopholes. Most recently, the May existing shark measures that prohibit finning, as well as additional dressed weight or to whole weight of the shark”. Committee; in 2009 most Contracting Parties (CPs) supported 2010 meeting of the Review Conference on the Fish Stocks international bans on shark finning. Not all delegates agreed this recommendation of the WPEB, while others (the Asian Agreement made important recommendations regarding that sharks should be landed with fins attached, but agreed that The IATTC Working Group also noted significant differences distant water fishing nations) wished to see further investigation strengthening shark finning prohibitions. These are reviewed measures needed to be adopted to ensure that the number between studies on ratios of fin-to-body weight and identified the of this issue. Reports of the recent discussions within the IOTC below. of sharks caught corresponded to the number of fins landed. following explanations for these: provide a good illustration of the development of the debate on Some participants also stressed that port and market measures  the number of fins included in the analyses; shark finning regulations within an RFMO; extracts are therefore were effective ways to control the practice of shark finning. FAO  how fins were cut (‘L’ or straight cut); presented in Annex III. 6.1 United Nations General Assembly was requested to convene a workshop to consider technical  the state of the shark carcasses (dressed or round); matters relating to a shark-fin rule, as recommended by the FAO  the length of the trip (which determines how dry the fins are); The International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Since 2003, UNGA Resolutions (Annex IV) have supported the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 2009. and the regional fisheries advisory body for the Northeast Atlantic, implementation of the FAO’s IPOA–Sharks and called upon States  the sizes of the sharks. has not formally considered the issue of shark finning. Many to improve the implementation of and compliance with existing The outcome of the Review Conference included the following members of the ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes, RFMO arrangements and national measures to regulate shark recommendations to strengthen the conservation and The IATTC Working Group suggested in this early report that however, attended a European Elasmobranch Association fisheries, including minimising waste and discards from shark management of sharks by: it would be better and easier to match the number of fins to workshop that undertook a detailed review of the range of catches. Since 2007, these Resolutions have also supported the number of carcasses rather than comparing weights. As conversion factors published for various shark fisheries. This requiring fins to be landed attached to carcasses: ‘‘...in particular i. establishing and implementing species-specific data mentioned, this method is workable when only small numbers of workshop concluded that a fin:carcass ratio is a complicated those measures which prohibit or restrict fisheries conducted collection requirements for shark species caught in directed sharks (5-20 per trip) are being retained. The practical constraints and usually inadequate tool for preventing finning because of solely for the purpose of harvesting shark fins, and, where shark fisheries or as by-catch in other fisheries; associated with counting all of the fins and carcasses contained differences in fin cutting techniques and variability among shark necessary, to consider taking other measures, as appropriate, in a large fishing vessel are much more challenging than those species’ fin sizes and values (as described in section 3), which such as requiring that all sharks be landed with each fin naturally ii. conducting biological assessments and develop associated associated with comparing the weights of large boxes or bundles potentially create loopholes that enable finning to continue. attached”. conservation and management measures for such sharks; of shark products. The IATTC Permanent Working Group on When ratios are set at the upper end of those observed in a and Compliance regularly notes that compliance with the IATTC range of fisheries, this problem is exacerbated, leaving species finning resolution requires attention by the Commission. with small fins and/or low value meat at particular risk of finning. 6.2 IUCN World Conservation Congress iii. strengthening, on the basis of the best scientific information However, the huge variations in fin removal practices mean that it available, enforcement of existing prohibitions on shark IOTC’s Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch (WPEB 2006) is impossible to develop a single optimal fin-to-carcass ratio for all The two most recent IUCN World Conservation Congresses finning, including through, inter alia, requiring that sharks be also noted that “the fin-to-body weight ratio for sharks varied fisheries. Furthermore, implementation of the EU Shark Finning (2004 and 2008) both adopted Recommendations on sharks and landed with their fins naturally attached or through different widely depending on species, fin-set and finning techniques, Regulation is seriously hampered by the derogation that allows shark finning. IUCN Recommendation 3.116 (2004) on Shark means that are equally effective and enforceable. and generally agreed that using ratios for particular species and/ the transhipment and separate landings of fins and carcasses. Finning urged States to implement the FAO IPOA–Sharks by or fleets might be needed, although difficult to implement.” The workshop concluded that the only practical means of developing national and regional action plans that, inter alia, As discussed in the previous sections, limiting fins by weight ratio The implementation difficulties would be huge, in view of the ensuring that finning cannot take place is to land sharks with their implement bans on shark finning. Requiring sharks to be landed or number, or reattaching fins might be a reasonably effective potential combinations of species, fleets, fisheries, fin sets, fins attached.A dditional benefits of a ‘fins attached’ policy include with their fins attached was identified as the favoured option for and enforceable means of implementing shark finning bans in finning techniques, Port States, Fishing States and landing sites reduced enforcement burden and vastly improved quality of implementing these bans, while a 5% fin:dressed carcass ratio very small, localised and well-monitored fisheries that land only within the IOTC area. information on species and quantities of sharks landed, for stock was promoted for fisheries using weight ratios. Further, States small numbers of sharks (5-20 per trip); however, these methods assessments and the provision of scientific advice to fisheries were urged to support the development and adoption of a new cannot be considered ‘equal’ in terms of effectiveness and The task of developing different ratios for different species and/ managers (Hareide et al., 2007). UNGA resolution to ban all shark finning in international waters. enforceability to requiring that fins remain naturally attached, even or fleets would require a great deal of research. Such a detailed This was replaced in 2008 by IUCN Recommendation 4.114 under these circumstances. Keeping the fins attached is the only study would increase knowledge of shark fisheries and inform Proposals to amend RFMO finning resolutions to require fins regarding a Global policy against shark finning. This referred to fool-proof method of ensuring finning does not occur and carries options for shark fisheries management. Such research will, to be landed naturally attached (e.g. by Costa Rica at the 2008 Rec 3.116 and the debate regarding the correct fin:carcass ratio with it a minor enforcement burden, especially when compared however, be costly and time consuming and take a long time to annual IATTC meeting and Belize, Brazil and the US at the 2009 needed in order effectively to prevent finning, particularly when to methods involving accounting for severed fins. implement and apply. annual ICCAT meeting) have not yet been adopted, but are likely limited resources are available for monitoring compliance. The to continue to be proposed in these and other RFMOs. Congress called upon States to land sharks only if their fins are In addition, it is difficult and costly to monitor compliance even naturally attached to their bodies, to improve implementation of with a single fin:carcass weight ratio, particularly in the absence In those cases where States fish sharks and aim to collaborate finning bans and aid species identification. of at-sea observers and generally poor levels of compliance in the management of shared and straddling or high seas shark monitoring and enforcement, let alone with several different stocks, it would be far preferable to harmonise their shark finning ratios. regulations and adopt a single, common and effective regulation, 6.3 Fish Stocks Agreement Review Conference than to have more than one form of regulation in place for More recent meetings of many RFMO advisory bodies have different fleets that are fishing a single stock and operating under The May 2010 meeting of the Review Conference on the been moving away from recommending counting or matching the same management regime. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN

18 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 19 The EU Finning Regulation 7

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003 on the removal of fins whole weight of the shark catch does not reflect the reality in and six to vessels engaged in experimental fisheries. In 2004, at the same time. Spanish annual reports did not provide of sharks on board vessels (the EU Finning Regulation) was specific cases for which scientific data are available, they did 198 Spanish SFPs were issued, 190 to surface longliners in information on the extent to which fins and carcasses were adopted in 2003 to reduce shark mortality. The regulation not provide information to suggest that the sector was having Spanish (99) and international (91) waters, one to a deep-sea being landed separately, and Portugal indicated that no separate prohibits the removal of fins from sharks on board vessels, significant difficulties in coping with the legislation (which might longliner in Spanish waters, and seven for experimental fisheries. landings or transhipments were made. No landings were reported but includes a derogation under which Member States can be related to the lack of enforcement, compliance monitoring and Justification for these permits was not provided. In 2003, 2004 in Germany by German flag vessels with SFPs, which fished in issue Special Fishing Permits (SFP) for the removal of fins on reporting). Neither did the Commission feel that the Regulation and 2005, Spanish vessels with SFPs caught an average of Irish waters and landed in Spain; Germany therefore relied upon board “where the need for the separate processing on board –when properly implemented and enforced– presented loopholes 87% of the total shark catch of the Spanish fleet. “The weight other EU Port States to monitor compliance. of shark fins and the remaining parts of the sharks has been allowing for significant finning to take place undetected within of sharks landed annually by Spanish vessels holding permits is justified” and to enable “a more efficient use of all shark this 5% limit. Although improved implementation by Member significantly smaller than the weight of sharks caught by these In 2004, only Portugal reported landing sharks (a small proportion parts”. States was desirable, particularly regarding criteria for allocation vessels” (2010/MARE/005), indicating that processing and discard of the catch) outside the Community (in Cape Town); Spain did of SPFs and compliance with reporting requirements, the of waste products was being undertaken on board, and/or that not provide information on the proportion of their shark landings Under this derogation, shark fins removed on board may be Commission concluded that the Regulation did not ‘at this stage’ unwanted sharks are being discarded at sea. made elsewhere in its first report. The European Commission (in landed or transhipped separately from carcasses. “Masters of (2005) appear to need amendment. its Roadmap for the proposal to amend the Finning Regulation, vessels which hold a valid special fishing permit should keep Portugal allocated 11 SFPs in 2004 to longline vessels catching 2010/MARE/005) notes that subsequent Spanish reports between records of the amounts of shark fins and of the remaining parts The Commission’s report also noted the European Community’s swordfish and pelagic sharks, requiring vessels to declare their 2004 and 2008 confirmed that Spanish vessels holding SFPs of sharks after evisceration and beheading.” Waste (heads, lead role in the adoption of finning bans by several RFMOs during capacity to use all parts of sharks, justify the need for on-board “have landed fins and carcasses (processed in various ways) in viscera, skin) derived from processing on board can be discarded the two years since the enactment of the EU Finning Regulation. processing (i.e. for trading or storage reasons) and to confirm non-EU ports in Australia, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, Ecuador, Fiji, at sea. For the purpose of monitoring/enforcing the Regulation These were the International Commission for the Conservation sanitary authorisation for on-board processing. French Polynesia, Indonesia, Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia, New and to promote full utilization, “the theoretical correspondence of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Caledonia, Panama, Peru, Senegal, South Africa, Trinidad and between weights of fins and bodies shall be established by Commission (IATTC), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), There are no reports of Member State vessels with SFPs Tobago, and Uruguay. The annual shark landings, in non-EU ports, Member States, taking into account the type of fishery, the and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO). exceeding the theoretical, 5% maximum fin:whole weight by Spanish vessels holding on-board processing permits were species composition and the type of processing and storage. In ratio. Spain and Portugal, however, consider that this ratio is not 8,077 tons in 2005, 9,003 tons in 2006, 8,295 tons in 2007 and no case shall the theoretical weight of the fins exceed 5% of the The Regulation posed no further obligation upon the Commission consistent with their fisheries. Spain referred to a Spanish study 9,119 tons in 2008. The annual shark landings (EU ports + non-EU live weight of the shark catch.” to produce subsequent reports on the operation of the Regulation and suggested setting different ratios for different fisheries. This ports) by Spanish vessels holding on-board processing permits and international developments in that field. position has been included by Spain in each annual report from were 20,447 tons in 2003, 21,417 tons in 2004, and 18,936 tons Under Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003, 2004 to 2008. in 2005. Of the 18,936 tons landed in 2005, 10,859 tons were all Member States that issue SFPs are required to provide landed in EU ports (i.e. 57%) and 8,077 tons were landed in the Commission no later than 1st May each year with a 7.1 Member State actions In their 2004 annual report, Portuguese authorities referred to a non-EU ports (i.e. 43%).” No information is provided on whether “comprehensive annual report on the implementation of this study on sharks caught in Azores waters that indicated a 6.6% these landings were of fins and carcasses together, or of only Regulation during the previous year”. “The report shall describe In 2003, only the UK and Germany provided reports on their ratio was appropriate for the Portuguese case. Subsequent one product or the other. the monitoring of compliance of vessels with the requirements allocation of SFPs (to three German-flagged vessels only), reports (ending 2006) have detailed that the traditional fin-cutting of Articles 3, 4 and 5 and shall detail in particular the number although Spain and Portugal reported that they had informed methods used by the Portuguese fleet produce a fin:carcass There were a few reports of infringements in 2004 regarding of special permits issued, the technical basis for setting the fisheries representatives of the requirements of the Regulation. ratio of some 5 to 6% of whole weight. These and similar studies compliance with recording requirements for shark fin weights theoretical correspondence between weights of fins and bodies The other Member States that responded reported that they had have been presented to ICES and ICCAT. Portugal indicated (Germany, Portugal) and the maximum weight ratio (Spain) by and the documentation considered valid for the purposes of not and would not be issuing such permits because they did not in 2004 that it used a ratio of 12% of fins to dressed carcass vessels with SFPs, although this was not considered to be monitoring separate landings of fins and bodies.” land sharks, or landed them whole. weight to ensure compliance with the 5% fin:whole weight evidence of failure to comply with the fin:whole weight ratio. ratio; this was the only conversion factor presented in the early Spain noted that in cases where the whole weight had not been Further, the Commission was required, following the submission France, which is one of the top 20 shark catching countries in the Member State reports to the Commission. However, the EU has provided in logbooks, inspectors applied the 20% tolerance by Member States of their second annual report and no later than world, has never issued any SFPs. Indeed, although the Fisheries recently requested that port inspectors undertaking compliance permitted under Regulation 2807/1993 between amounts in January 2006, to “report to the European Parliament and the Ministry prepared a French SFP, the industry’s Comité National monitoring of EU landings in foreign ports apply a fin:dressed whole weight recorded in logbooks and the unloaded amounts Council on the operation of this Regulation and the international des Pêches Maritimes asked for a strict ban on finning to be weight ratio of 11.7% (Craig Smith, Pelagics and High Seas in processed weight landed (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y developments in this field, and submit, if appropriate, any enforced for French vessels and French waters. Infractions are to Fisheries Management, Department of Agriculture, Alimentacion, 2006). amendment to this Regulation. Where the proposed amendments result in fines on vessel captains. Sharks retained are therefore Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa, pers. would affect the theoretical correspondence between weights of landed whole, even when frozen. comm.). Information on Member State implementation of the Finning fins and bodies, these amendments shall be made in the light of Regulation is generally hard to come by. Access to Member State the advice of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee In 2004, UK (20 vessels) and Germany (five vessels) again Separate landings of fins and carcasses were not reports requires a formal request to the Commission, which for Fisheries.” This report, COM(2005)700, noted that compliance reported on their SFPs, but the UK did not describe the permitted under the UK’s SFPs, which allowed usually takes many months to be answered. Most Member with the deadlines and the very specific guidance on the content justification for the need to process sharks on board. fins to be removed when carcasses were skinned States regularly submit their reports late, if at all, and can simply of the annual reports from Member States had been poor, with Lithuania noted that it had issued one SFP for 2005 on board but required fins and bodies to be landed block public access to them. For example, Portugal’s 2007 and reports for the year 2004 missing from five Member States and to a vessel targeting sharks and usually landing in additional information requested from seven other Member Vigo (COM(2005)700). Spain reported that it States still not provided. had issued 182 SFPs to surface longliners Council Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board in 2003. Of these, 90 were allocated for Although two Member States considered that the present fisheries in Spanish waters, 86 for vessels (the EU Finning Regulation) was adopted in 2003 to reduce shark mortality. maximum 5% ratio between the weight of fins and the total fisheries in international waters, The regulation prohibits the removal of fins from sharks on board vessels...

20 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 21 7

2008 reports (due before 1st May in 2008 and 2009, respectively) Commission of scientific studies on shark fin to carcass ratios The European Commission addressed this problem in April had not been submitted to the Commission by the release of covering the wide range of European shark species and fishing 2010, when it circulated through the ICCAT Secretariat a request the Commission’s Roadmap (2010/MARE/005). The Commission fleets taking sharks” and to “put before the European Parliament for non-EU Port States to use an interim fin:dressed carcass has fulfilled NGO requests for filed reports, but incompletely and the Council within the next six months a proposal for weight control ratio of 11.7% for monitoring compliance by EU because one or more Member States had prevented the sharing amending (it) in line with the majority of scientific analyses of Member State vessels with the EU 5% whole weight ratio. of such information (S. Polti pers. comm. 20 August 2010). Spain, shark fin to carcass ratios for Atlantic sharks, including the blue This figure was derived from the average fin:dressed carcass in particular, has refused to release related information to NGOs shark (Prionace glauca), which conclude that a 5% fin to dressed weight ratios obtained by the Spanish fleet for blue sharks (which (Oceana 2010). In mid-2009, Finland was the only Member State weight (approximately 2.0% of live weight) ratio is an appropriate generally comprise 87% of the shark catch) and for mako sharks to have submitted its 2008 report (S. Polti pers. comm. upper limit for mixed shark fisheries.” (~10% of the shark catch) and the average conversion between 20 August 2010). whole weight and dressed weight for a typical catch in these proportions. In 2009, the governments of the UK and Germany, which 7.3 EU finning ban problems and loopholes between them issued SFPs to 25 vessels in 2004 and 21 in 2005, Implications for finning rules adopted in RFMOs announced that they would no longer be issuing SFPs allowing As discussed above, there has been considerable debate in the As discussed in the RFMO section (see section 5), the need to shark fins to be removed on board. From 2010 onwards, all sharks European Commission and Parliament, and among EU Member accommodate the different weight ratios mandated by different retained by German and British flagged vessels must be landed States, regarding the enforcement of the EU Finning Regulation. Contracting Parties (CPs) within a single common norm has with their fins still naturally attached. In 2010, Spain and Portugal This debate has arisen at least in part because the EU Regulation resulted in lenient finning bans being adopted by RFMOs. In are the only Member States that are definitely still issuing SFPs, differs in several respects from other finning prohibitions adopted making or negotiating proposals for finning bans within RFMOs, and do so for most of their shark fishing vessels. It is possible elsewhere, as noted in previous sections. the Commission naturally proposed using its maximum ratio of

that Lithuania, as flag state, is still issuing one SFP to a Spanish- D oug P errine /S ea ics 5% of fin weight to whole weight, which is much higher than the owned vessel that lands in Spain, but no information has been Separate landings of fins and carcasses maximum ratio of 5% of fin weight to dressed weight (equivalent available since 2005. In February 2010, Cyprus (which has The EU Finning Regulation set a precedent when it allowed shark to retain a weight of fins that is 12% of the dressed carcasses to about 2% of whole weight) used by most other States. By way reported an average catch of 20t/year of sharks, skates and rays fins and carcasses to be landed at different ports, rather than on board (COM(2005)700). This is more than twice the 5% of of compromise, all RFMOs with finning prohibitions therefore during the past decade), informed the Commission that it intends mandating simultaneous landings. No other finning prohibition dressed weight ratio most commonly used outside the EU. adopted a ratio that accommodates both options through the use to start issuing SFPs. in existence allows this to take place. Separate landings prevent Setting such a high ratio could, in theory, allow vessels that dry of the following phrase: “Vessels may not have onboard fins that compliance monitoring (direct measurement and confirmation fins on board or do not use a ‘Spanish cut’ to fin more than two total more than 5% of the weight of the sharks onboard at the of the appropriate ratio through comparison of fin and carcass shark carcasses for each one retained, while still remaining within first point of landing.” 7.2 European Parliament action weights) when catches are offloaded. This loophole was based the EU’s permitted fin:carcass ratio. on fishing industry arguments that it is not always possible or as As noted, this deliberately vague wording allows CPs with finning Issues of concern raised in the European Parliament regarding profitable for shark fins to be marketed in the ports where the Theoretical ratio bans to interpret the regulation in accordance with their own the EU Finning Regulation have included: corresponding shark carcasses are landed. In reality, at every As noted above, the EU Finning Regulation is unnecessarily domestic regulations (for example, as described above, 12%  the ratio is too high – higher than that adopted by other shark port where shark carcasses are landed, fins are also routinely difficult to implement because it sets a theoretical weight of dressed weight in the case of Portugal). CPs that have not fishing nations. When applied by RFMOs (and thereby other purchased for export to Asian markets. It appears from the ratio for fins:whole carcasses, but the carcasses landed have yet developed national finning bans are free to use whichever RFMO Contracting Parties), it sets a low bar and enables Commission’s report (COM(2005)700) that Spain has been the been partly processed (‘dressed’) and are no longer whole. A definition they prefer and may choose to establish their own vessels that do not use the ‘Spanish cut’ to undertake a only Member State to make use of this aspect of the derogation. theoretical ratio cannot, therefore, be measured by fisheries finning regulation in line with the bad example set by the EU (high certain amount of finning; Shark fins and carcasses, however, are also commonly landed inspectors charged with monitoring compliance at landing sites theoretical ratios and separate landings that prevent compliance  the ratio is too low – lower than observed fin cutting practice together by Spanish and other EU vessels, in both fresh and by comparing the weights of fins and carcasses landed together; monitoring). Those CPs whose vessels do not use the Spanish in many Spanish and Portuguese vessels, making it necessary frozen form, before being sold on to different markets. The logbooks provide the only record of whole weights retained and cut, but routinely retain shark fins in a ratio of 2% of whole for fins to be discarded; European Commission, in its review of the Finning Regulation these can never be verified in port. Instead, Member States must weight, or 5% of dressed weight, could therefore continue to  the Regulation is unnecessarily hard, if not impossible to (above) and its CPOA proposals (COM(2009) 40, below), has develop their own conversion factor for a fin:dressed weight ratio, fin a significant proportion of the sharks that they catch, while monitor and enforce because it sets a theoretical rather than noted concern regarding this loophole in the implementation of but the Regulation provides no guidance for this nor does it set remaining within the weight ratio specified by RFMOs. Fleets an observed weight ratio and allows fins and carcasses to be the Regulation, particularly that the justification for allowing the any upper limit. Portugal is the only Member State that appears to that commonly dry shark fins on board, thus reducing fin weight landed in different ports; practice is weak. have provided this information to the Commission, and uses 12% still further, may fin an even larger number of sharks (see  a single ratio for all fisheries is inappropriate and should be (see above). It was impossible for fisheries inspectors outside the section 5). replaced by a range of ratios in order to account for variations High fin:carcass ratio EU, or inspectors in other EU countries, to evaluate compliance obtained from different shark species and different fishing The maximum permitted fin to whole weight ratio of 5% with the EU Regulation when no upper fin:dressed weight ratio In these ways, the unusually lenient weight ratio adopted within fleets; and specified in the EU Finning Regulation is significantly higher had been published for vessels offloading catches in their ports. the EU, to accommodate cutting practices in some Member  the derogation should be removed completely (thus requiring and therefore more lenient than the ratios adopted by other In contrast, the majority of other finning prohibitions around the State vessels, has served as a “lowest common denominator” fins to be landed still naturally attached to the carcass). shark fishing entities, most of which use a ratio of 5% of the world mandate a maximum ratio of 5% for the weight of fins to and has created loopholes for finning on a global scale. dressed weight, roughly equivalent to 2% of whole weight. The the weight of dressed (beheaded and gutted carcasses) that are In 2006, the European Parliament debated a proposal to increase EU adopted a higher value presumably to take into account the actually offloaded, or some other ratio that reflects the form in the fin to live (whole) weight ratio to 6%. The outcome was opinions and cutting techniques of the Spanish and Portuguese which carcasses are landed (the ratio is higher if carcasses are a Resolution calling on the Commission to “put before the pelagic longline fleet (see section 3). Indeed, Portugal has filleted on board). This provides authorities with an upper limit Parliament and the Council a proposal for amending Regulation reported to the Commission that the conversion factor used that can be measured at landing sites to assess compliance. (EC) No 1185/2003, following a comprehensive review by the from whole weight to dressed weight allows Portuguese vessels

22 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 23 Amending the EU Finning Regulation 8

8.1 Community Plan of Action (CPOA) for Sharks Contradictory proposals fins in various fleets.A s noted above, alternative proposals from OPTION 2: Less than one month after the Council of Ministers’ endorsement the EU to the IOTC in 2009, to place fins in plastic bags, or to use Require that shark fins and bodies are landed simultaneously Proposed CPOA Actions of the CPOA, at the April/May 2009 annual meeting of the Indian serial numbers to match severed fin sets with the corresponding The justification for permitting fins and carcasses to be landed In February 2009, following a consultation period, the European Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the European Commission, carcass, were heavily criticised as impractical and difficult to at different ports (namely that it is not possible to market fins Commission released a Community Plan of Action (CPOA representing the European Community, presented a proposal implement. The Roadmap concludes, therefore: “If fins were to at some ports where the carcasses are landed) is weak, if not – COM(2009) 40) for improving EU shark policies, including for replacing the fin:carcass ratio with new alternatives for remain attached to the body, and therefore landed simultaneously completely untenable. It is well known that fin merchants and/ the finning ban.A t the time, the EU Fisheries Commissioner storing severed fins in plastic bags which would be attached to in the same port, finning would become impossible and data or fin processors are present or represented in every fishing port pledged that the Plan would result in “stronger control carcasses, or marking fins and carcasses stored separately with collection would be greatly enhanced.” used by shark fishing fleets, and that shark fins are routinely measures to ensure that the strict terms of the finning ban matching serial numbers. shipped by container from landing sites worldwide, either back to are properly respected.” Among the issues raised in this The Roadmap set out three of the potential policy options for the EU fin trade centres of Las Palmas or Vigo, or directly to East document was concern that: “an important possible loophole These options ran counter to the Action proposed in the CPOA making changes to (EC) 1185/2003 (Box 4). It did not include the Asian processing centres. in the implementation of the ‘finning’ regulation by EC Member and endorsed by EU Ministers, and were heavily criticised by main action set out in the CPOA , which is essentially to reduce States is the risk that they accept too general justifications for conservation, animal welfare, scientific and recreational fishing the EU fin:carcass ratio to 5% of dressed weight, with exceptions Moreover, requiring boats to land shark fins and carcasses the need to separate processing on board of shark fins and the organisations, who were not consulted prior to the meeting, as for up to 5% of whole weight for Member States demonstrating together in the same port at the same time would improve remaining parts of sharks.” The Commission also recognised that flawed, impractical and difficult to implement. In particular, the higher ratios. monitoring compliance and enforcement of the Finning international experts had recommended that: “an effective and bag method has been rejected by the IOTC Working Party on Regulation. practical ‘finning’ Regulation should make it compulsory to land Ecosystems and Bycatch (2009) and condemned by NGOs (partly The debate is scheduled to reopen in earnest in late 2010, when sharks with fins attached”. Box 4 contains the proposed Action because of the choking and entanglement risk to wildlife). The EU the Commission will issue a public consultation document that FINDING: To enable enforcement of the finning ban, shark to confirm the EU finning ban that is presented in the Community proposal and a similar one from Australia were opposed by Japan will present various options for amending the Finning Regulation. fins and carcasses should be landed at the same time, in the Shark Plan. and Korea and were ultimately rejected by the IOTC as a whole. This will include direct consultation with the Regional Advisory same port. Councils (RACs) and the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and In April 2009, the EU Council of Fisheries Ministers officially Aquaculture (ACFA ), while wider input from scientists, NGOs, endorsed the European Commission’s Shark Plan and encouraged 8.2 Commission Roadmap industry, and other stakeholders will also be considered. OPTION 3 the Commission to “pay special attention to the issues of Apply fin:carcass ratio to dressed rather than whole finning” and “give priority to proposing as quickly as possible” In March 2010, more than a year after its commitment to revise Following a public consultation period of at least two months, (theoretical) weight amendments to the EU Finning Regulation. the Finning Regulation, the European Commission issued a the Commission is planning to finalise and deliver its proposal There are major drawbacks associated with enforcing a Roadmap (2010/MARE/005) regarding a Proposal for a Council for an amended Finning Regulation to the European Council of fin:carcass ratio through a theoretical, whole weight ratio, as Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003 on Fisheries Ministers and the European Parliament. Final changes this ratio cannot possibly be measured using dressed carcasses the removal of shark fins on board vessels. This noted the are therefore not likely to take effect until 2012. at landing sites. Compliance monitoring, in this case, requires commitment in the CPOA to confirm the EU finning ban and a published weight ratio between fins and dressed carcasses BOX 4 | Proposed CPOA Action to confirm the ban of highlighted the main problems associated with the current landed to exist, but such conversion factors are not specified in finning practices (source COM(2009) 40) Regulation identified by the fishing industry, NGOs and RFMOs 8.3 Review of possible Commission options the EU Finning Regulation, are apparently not readily available (the ‘problems and loopholes’ summarised in Section 7.3). The from Member States and, if available, vary considerably between As a general rule, it will be prohibited to remove shark Commission has stated its recognition of flaws in the current This section includes evaluation and conclusions on options that Member States due to variations in species landed, processing fins on board and to tranship or land shark fins. Any EU Finning Regulation, most notably the provisions that allow have so far been explored in the debate on strengthening the EU practices (head on or off, round carcass, or skinned and/or filleted exception to this rule will have to be fully justified on fins and carcasses to be landed in different ports, and fins finning regulation. Whereas some options are mutually exclusive carcass). These problems are exacerbated by the fact that large solid and objective grounds and documented prior to to be removed on board without adequate justification. The (i.e. should a ratio be retained or not), others can and should be quantities of shark carcasses and fins are offloaded at ports the issuing by the Member State of the special permit. Commission also recognises the possibility that, under the used in conjunction with each other. outside the EU, where it is even more difficult to ensure that Member States should not issue special permits to current weight ratio, finning and high-grading may be taking EU regulations are being enforced. The European Commission vessels that do not meet this condition. place. The major underlying causes of the problem are that has recently released through ICCAT a new temporary rule for “allowing separate landings of fins and carcasses makes it OPTION 1 a fin:carcass dressed weight ratio to be applied to EU Member Consider a possible review of the 5% rule by requiring impossible to ensure that the finning ban is respected”, and “once No policy change States vessels, pending resolution of the ratio problem. that in no case shall the weight of the fins exceed 5% of fins have been severed from the body it becomes impossible to The European Commission, the Council of Ministers, and the the dressed (gutted and beheaded) carcass weight of the ensure beyond doubt that the finning ban is respected.” European Parliament have all made strong statements about FINDING: If a fin:carcass ratio is used, it should be based on a shark catch. However, Member States that have set up the need to strengthen the EU Finning Regulation, one of the defined dressed weight, not whole, theoretical weight. and implemented data collection programmes that show Further, the processing of sharks on board “precludes the weakest such bans in the world. that this percentage could be increased in certain cases, collection and or verification, by inspectors, of data such as could do so up to a percentage corresponding to 5% of species identification, catch composition, age/size population FINDING: The status quo situation will not fulfil commitments OPTION 4 the live weight of the shark catch. structure etc., which are vital to the development of effective to strengthen the EU Finning Regulation, or comply with the Changing the fin:carcass ratio management and conservation measures.” On the other hand, recent recommendation1 from the Fish Stocks Agreement There is widespread concern regarding the discrepancy between For vessels of Member States that have been exempt the Commission in its Roadmap acknowledges that scientific Review Conference. the 5% dressed carcass weight that is used by most other shark from the obligation of landing sharks with fins attached, literature from Spain and Portugal identifies fin-to-whole-weight (1 “requiring that sharks be landed with their fins naturally attached or through fishing States and the 5% of whole weight used in the EU. to introduce the requirement to land shark fins and ratios for the blue shark that are higher than the 5% mandated in different means that are equally effective and enforceable.”) Several expert reviewers (e.g. IOTC WPEB 2008, 2009) have carcasses at the same time in the same port. the Regulation, and that variations in the weight ratio can result highlighted the lack of clear, scientific basis for fin:carcass ratios. from the different fin cutting techniques and retention of different

24 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 25 8

A wide range of conversion factors have been published in the OPTION 5 OPTION 6 landed is vastly improved, providing valuable data for stock literature, arising from differences in fin sizes between species, Match severed fins to carcasses using bags or tags Prohibit the removal of shark fins on board vessels (remove assessments and management advice. Although fishermen are age classes within a species and processing differences between As reported in section 4.4 this strategy was proposed to the IOTC Article 4 of the Finning Regulation that allows for derogation) unable to skin or fillet carcasses on board, fin cutting and other vessels and fleets (cutting practices, numbers of fins retained, by the EU without prior public consultation. It is in use in some The numerous practical advantages of a fins-naturally-attached processing onshore can be undertaken precisely as requested whether whole or dressed carcass weight is used and, if the small and strictly regulated Australian fisheries. strategy (which is equivalent to the EU Regulation without by buyers (locally and in East Asia), thus maximising the value of latter, how the carcass is processed). any derogation) have led to an increasing number of shark the final products. Concerns about the practicalities of freezing Box 2 (Section 4) reviews the experience of Costa Rica, which fishing countries adopting this option instead of other means of carcasses on board with fins still attached have been resolved by The first fin:carcarcass ratio (5% of dressed weight) was briefly adopted a similar approach to implementing its shark implementing finning prohibitions. It is also recommended by the fisheries operating in the States that have adopted this measure established in the early 1990s in the US where it was calculated finning ban. This case history should be sufficient to support 2010 Fish Stocks Agreement Review Conference and the IUCN (see Section 4.1). as an upper limit for mixed shark fisheries based on the practices the rejection of this option on practical grounds. Beyond that, World Conservation Congress. When fins remain attached to the of US fishermen (who were removing only the lower lobe of the managers should consider the sheer scale of the task that has carcasses until after they have been landed (as commonly seen FINDING: Prohibiting the removal of shark fins on board tail fin and minimising the amount of meat left attached to fins). been suggested when applied to large-scale shark fisheries. for sharks landed fresh in Vigo market), finning and high-grading vessels is the only fail-safe, most reliable, least expensive This ratio has become the standard of several countries fishing Under such an amendment, fishermen would need to bag and/or (mixing bodies and fins from different sizes or species of shark) means to prevent finning and measure compliance; this the same shark populations fished by EU vessels, notably the label every set of shark fins detached from a carcass and retained are impossible. The enforcement burden is therefore significantly method is viable for freezer vessels and can facilitate the US and Canada. The EU’s 5% fin:whole weight ratio, based on board. Fisheries inspectors will subsequently be expected reduced compared with the other options described above; collection of much-needed, species-specific catch data. on Spanish cutting techniques, is roughly twice as lenient and to match up a proportion of numbered carcasses and fin sets in compliance monitoring is restricted to ensuring that no detached can therefore lead to undetected finning if alternative cutting order to monitor compliance. fins are present until onshore processing has commenced. practices are employed. As explained above, all of the RFMOs There is no need for different rules, ratios or conversion factors with finning bans limit the fin:carcass ratio at 5% without As already noted, in recent years the Spanish vessels that hold to be debated and applied in different fisheries or for different specifying whole or dressed weight. SFPs have landed some 8,000 to 9,000 tonnes of shark products species, because no weight measurements or matching of fins at ports in 18 non-EU countries, and 10,000 to 12,000 tonnes in with carcasses are necessary. Because sharks are more readily A lower EU ratio would be of very limited benefit if, as indicated EU ports. At an average weight of 30kg/shark before processing identifiable when their fins are still attached, the opportunity to in the CPOA (see Box 4), the most important shark fishing on board (Clarke et al., 2006), or 10-20kg after processing, this collect data on species, size distribution and numbers of sharks fleets, and indeed the only MS removing shark fins on board, equates to more than a million shark carcasses and fin sets that are allowed to continue to use the 5% theoretical whole weight would require labelling, bagging, sorting and attaching by the ratio and to set their own ratios for fin:dressed carcass weights. Spanish sector alone, each year. Extending this requirement to The drawbacks of this approach have been summarised above. all fleets operating within the remit of the RFMOs with finning Such continued loopholes would hamper, if not prevent, the prohibitions that might subsequently be encouraged to adopt a strengthening of RFMO finning bans (by specifying that the 5% comparable regulation, would require in the order of 10 million weight ratio applies to dressed, not whole, carcasses). Applying shark fin sets to be bagged or otherwise marked in order that a uniform, lower ratio to all EU fleets would require that Spanish they could subsequently be matched with the corresponding fishermen, in particular, would need to alter their fin cutting carcass. practices, but such adjustments would be in line with market demands and so could well increase their profits. Taking these factors into consideration, it is no surprise that the IOTC WPEB, conservation NGOs, and many in the fishing  Raising the ratio would widen current loopholes and increase industry (according to 2010/MARE/005) are united in their the opportunities for undetected finning. opposition to this complicated method.

 Setting different ratios for different species and/or fleets, in FINDING: A system of placing severed fins in bags that are addition to requiring a great deal of research, would be costly, then attached to carcasses has only been tested in a few, time consuming and particularly difficult to implement. small-scale shark fisheries. The tag method appears to be completely untested. Implementation and enforcement of  Shared shark populations should be managed consistently these methods would be impracticable and unacceptably throughout their ranges, making harmonised regulations labour-intensive for fisheries taking more than a few (5–20) preferable. sharks. The bag method also presents a variety of concerns with respect to ingestion/entanglement by wildlife, even if FINDING: A reduced fin:carcass ratio set at 5% of dressed bags used eventually biodegrade. weight (with the term ‘dressed’ clearly defined) would significantly reduce the opportunity for undetected finning, make the EU Finning Regulation more precautionary and consistent with other countries, and, given the existing RFMO As a general rule, it will be prohibited to remove shark fins on board and to agreements, could represent the fastest route to tighter tranship or land shark fins. Any exception to this rule will have to be fully finning bans on a global scale. To have effect, the new ratio should apply to all EU Member State vessels. justified on solid and objective grounds and documented prior to the issuing by the Member State of the special permit. (COM(2009) 40)

26 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 27 9Conclusions Recommendations 10

Since the world’s first shark finning prohibition was The majority of scientific solutions have focused on the need for The following recommendations are based on the thorough  Retain a maximum fin to carcass weight ratio only as an introduced in 1993, various methods for enforcing such bans improved data on catches, landings, and shark biology – all of analyses provided in this report. They are intended to inform interim measure on the path to ending at-sea shark fin have been tested. Over the past five years, due largely to which are essential for stock assessments and the provision of the development of the final proposal for revising the EU removal and as a back-up means for onshore post-processing leadership from Costa Rica, a trend has developed away from management advice – and ways in which finning prohibitions can Shark Finning Regulation by the European Commission as enforcement; the use of the standard fin:carcass fin ratios to requirements support the delivery of this information. Some have recognised well as the response from the European Council of Ministers that shark carcasses be landed with the fins still naturally that small differences in weight ratios do occur between different and the European Parliament.  Until a ban on at-sea fin removal ban is in place: attached. Attempts to introduce alternative implementation species and age classes of shark, as well as in numbers of • Mandate the simultaneous landing of shark fins and methods, such as reattaching fins to carcasses, counting fins fins retained and fin cuts used. These scientists have therefore carcasses; and carcasses at landing sites, or labelling fins and carcasses recommended different ratios for different cases, with little Primary recommendation • Base the ratio on a defined dressed weight (rather than a so that they can later be matched up, have for the most part consideration of how these could be applied and monitored in theoretical whole weight); been rejected before adoption or, if adopted, found to be large fisheries. Remove the Articles (4 & 5) that allow for derogation from • Reduce, without exception, the existing fin to carcass unsuitable and rapidly rescinded. the EU Finning Regulation, thus prohibiting without exception ratio to one, uniformly applied, more precautionary, clearly Some policy-makers’ recommendations have failed to take the removal of shark fins on board vessels. This will minimise defined standard of 5% of dressed weight. A major concern with all fin:carcass weight ratios is that they into account the practical implications for the fishing industry, incidents of shark finning and enforcement burden, while provide too many loopholes that can enable fishermen to fin fisheries inspectors, or marine environment – particularly those maximizing the ability to collect valuable, species-specific data.  Regardless of the option(s) chosen, encourage greater sharks. This is particularly the case for the EU derogation, which: that involve tagging millions of shark carcasses and fin sets so investment in programs for observer coverage and that they can later be matched up, or counting fins and carcasses enforcement of this and other important regulations.  sets a theoretical rather than a measurable fin: carcass weight at landing sites, or using plastic bags at sea to contain individual Secondary recommendations ratio; fin sets. Given the overwhelming benefits of this “fins naturally attached”  sets an exceedingly high fin:carcass weight ratio limit; Prohibiting the removal of all shark fins on board vessels is the method (detailed in previous sections), this advice addresses single most reliable and least expensive way to prevent finning; the remaining, substantially less reliable options that have been  permits separate landings of fins and carcasses; this method is viable for freezer vessels and can facilitate the discussed in the recent past: collection of much-needed, species-specific catch data.  is driven by the desire of two EU Member States to account  Reject the status quo as improvements to the exceptionally for ‘traditional’ fin cuts and pursuit of different markets, As detailed in previous sections, requiring that fins stay naturally weak EU Finning Regulation are urgently warranted and have even though options exist for maintaining trade flow while attached until after landing yields many important benefits: been repeatedly promised. improving enforcement and increasing product value;  Enforcement burden is eased as compliance monitoring is  Reject all options involving bagging or marking severed shark  presents considerable monitoring and enforcement problems, restricted to ensuring no detached fins are on board. fins as unreliable, virtually unenforceable, labour-intensive, not just within the EU but internationally. and potentially harmful to marine wildlife. V Finning and high-grading of fins are impossible. In addition, the EU’s high fin:carcass ratio has been translated into RFMO regulations, thus weakening them and exporting a  Identification to the species level is much easier than when bad example to other countries. the fins have been removed, thereby improving the catch data needed for population assessments and management advice. To complicate matters further, Member State reporting on the implementation of the EU Finning Regulation has been seriously  For both fresh and frozen shark landings, onshore fin cutting lacking. Many reports are incomplete; most are submitted late, if can be done more carefully and thereby result in reduced at all, and are not readily accessible to the public. waste of meat, improved fin quality, and greater economic benefits to fishermen as products are more closely matched In many cases, alternative recommendations to current ratios for with processors’ requirements. the implementation of finning prohibitions have failed to take into account all of the important factors that must be considered if such bans are to be effective, particularly considerations regarding practicalities of compliance monitoring and enforcement.

Fishery managers, as well as fishing industry groups, should welcome this timely report as valuable and an authoritative guide towards more responsible and sustainable fishing of shark resources. (Ross Shotton)

28 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 29 Bibliography

Baremore I.E. et al. (unpublished). Clarke S.C., McAllister M.K., FAO (2009). FAOSTAT Population ICCAT. (2005) Report of the 2005 McCoy M.A. and Ishihara H., (1999). Rose D.A. (1996). An Overview of Relationships between length and Milner-Gulland E.J., Kirkwood G.P., Annual Time Series 1961–2007. FAO: meeting of the Standing Committee The socioeconomic importance World Trade in Sharks and Other fin weights and carcass weights for Michielsens C.G.J., Agnew D.J., Rome Italy. on Research and Statistics (SCRS) of sharks in the U.S. flag areas of Cartilaginous Fishes TRAFFIC eighteen species of sharks in the Pikitch E.K., Nakano H. and Shivji Madrid, Spain (October 3–7, 2005). the Western and Central Pacific. International: Cambridge UK. western North Atlantic and Gulf of M.S., (2006). Global estimates of Fong, Q.S.W. and Anderson J.L. PLE–013/2005. Report to the National Marine Mexico. shark catches using trade records (1998). Assessment of the Hong Kong Fisheries Service. Gillett, Preston and Santana Garcon, J. et al. (in from commercial markets. Ecology Shark Fin Trade. Proceedings of the ICCAT SCRS. (2006). International Associates Inc. preparation). Is the shark fin to body Camhi, M.D., Fordham, S.V., and Letters, (2006) 9: 1115–1126. 9th Conference of the International Commission for the Conservation of weight a good management tool for Fowler, S.L. (2008). Domestic and Institute of Fisheries Economics and Atlantic Tunas, Report of the Standing Mejuto, J., García-Cortés B., Ortiz de enforcing a finning ban? international management for pelagic Cortes E. and Neer J. A., (2006). Trade, Tromsø, Norway, 1998. Eide Committee on Research and Statistics Urbina, J. . (2009). Ratios between sharks. In: Camhi, M. D., Pikitch, E. Preliminary Reassessment of the A. and Vassdal T. eds., Volume 2, (SCRS), Madrid, Spain, 2–6 October the wet fin weight and body weights Soon-Song Kim, Doo-Hae An, Dae- K., and Babcock, E. A. (eds). (2008). Validity of the 5% Fin to Carcass pp. 669-673, International Institute 2006. October 2006 PLE-014/2006 of blue shark (Prionace glauca) in Yeon Moon and Seon Jae Hwang. Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Weight Ratio for Sharks. Col. Vol. Sci. of Fisheries Economics and Trade : the Spanish surface longline fleet (2007). Estimation of ratio of fin Fisheries and Conservation. Blackwell Pap. ICCAT 59: 1025–1036. Corvallis, Oregon, United States. ICCAT. (2004). Report of the 2004 during the period 1993-2006 and their weight to body weight of sharks in Publishing, Oxford, U.K. Inter-sessional meeting of the ICCAT impact on the ratio of sharks species the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2006. Department of Fisheries and Fowler, S.L. et al. (in press 2010). Sub-Committee on By-catches: Shark combined. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. National Fisheries Research and China Customs. (2005). China Oceans. (2001). Canadian Atlantic Global threat status of sharks, rays Stock Assessment. SCRS/2004/014. ICCAT, 64(5): 1492-1508. Development Institute (NFRDI), Customs Statistics Yearbook (annually Pelagic Shark Integrated Fishery and chimaeras. Republic of Korea. http://www.iattc. from 1998–2004). Goodwill China Management Plan, 2000–2001. IOTC. (2006). Report of the Second Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y org/slides/2007/May/Sharksfin-ppt- Business Information Limited, Hong Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. Gilman, E., Clarke, S., Brothers, N., Session of the IOTC Working Party Alimentacion. (2006). Informe Anual 1-SAR-8-12f.ppt. Kong. Alfaro-Shigueto-J., Mandleman, J., on Bycatch. Seychelles, 31 July – 1 de 2005 sobre la aplicacion del Dulvy et al., (2008). You can swim Mangel, J., Petersen, S., Piovano, S., August 2006. IOTC-2006-WPBy-R[EN]. reglamento (CE) No. 1185/2003 del Subasinghe S. (1992). Shark Fin, Sea Clarke S. (2004a). Understanding but you can’t hide: the global status Thomson, D., Dalzell, P., Donoso, M., consejo, sobre el cercenamiento de cucumber and Jellyfish: A Processor’s pressures on fishery resources and conservation of oceanic pelagic Goren, M., Werner, T. 2007. Shark IOTC. (2008). Report of the Eleventh las aletas de los tiburones en Guide. Infofish Technical Handbook 6. through trade statistics: a pilot study sharks. Aquat. Conserv. 18, 459–482. Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch Session of the Scientific Committee. los buques. Infofish, Kuala Lumpur. of four products in the Chinese dried in Pelagic Longline Fisheries: Industry IOTC-2008-SC-R[E]. seafood market. Fish and Fisheries European Commission. (2010). Practices and Attitudes and Shark NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Vannuccini, S. (1999). Shark 5: 53–74. Proposal for a Regulation of the Avoidance Strategies. Western Pacific IOTC. (2008). Report of the Fourth Service). (1993). Fishery management Utilization, Marketing and Trade. FAO European Parliament and of the Regional Fisheries Management session of the Working Party on plan for sharks of the Atlantic Ocean. Fisheries Technical Paper 389, Food Clarke S. (2004b). Shark Product Trade Council amending Council Regulation Council, Honolulu, USA. Ecosystems and Bycatch. IOTC-2008- US Department of Commerce. 272 pp. and Agriculture Organization, Rome, in Hong Kong and Mainland China (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal WPEB-R[E] Italy. and Implementation of the Shark of fins of sharks on board vessels. Hareide, N.R., Carlson J., Clarke Oceana. (2010). Press release : CITES Listings. TRAFFIC East Asia (2010/MARE/005). Brussels. M., Clarke S., Ellis J., Fordham S., IOTC. (2009). Report of the Fifth August 11, 2010. “La Audiencia Hong Kong. Fowler S., Pinho M., Raymakers session of the Working Party on Nacional Obliga al Gobierno European Commission. (2005). Report C., Serena F., Séret B., and Polti S. Ecosystems and Bycatch. IOTC-2009- a dar datos a Oceana sobre la Clarke, S. (2003). Appendix 2. Trade from the Commission to the Council (2007). European Shark Fisheries: WPEB-R[E] IOTC, (2005). Report of contaminacion por mercurio del in Shark Products in Malaysia, and the European Parliament on a preliminary investigation into the Eighth Session of the Scientific pescados vendido en Espagne.” Singapore and Thailand. In: SEAFDEC. the operation of Council Regulation fisheries, conversion factors, trade Committee, Victoria, Seychelles, 7–11 Oceana, Madrid, Spain. (2006). Report on the Study on (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal products, markets and management November 2005. IOTC-2005-SC-R. Shark Production, Utilization and of fins of sharks on board vessels. measures. European Elasmobranch Oceanic Développement and Management in the ASEAN Region COM(2005)700 Association. IOTC. (2007). Report of the Ninth MegaPesca Lda. (2007). Analysis 2003-2004, Southeast Asian Fisheries Session of the Scientific Committee. of the trade aspects of the German Development Center, Bangkok, European Commission. (2009). Hong Kong Customs and Statistics Victoria, Seychelles, 6-10 November proposals to list two species of shark Thailand. 229 pp. Communication from the Commission Department. (2010). Unpublished 2006. IOTC-2006-SC-R[EN]. 120 pp. (porbeagle – Lamna nasus – and to the European Parliament and the data on Hong Kong trade statistics spiny dogfish – Squalus acanthias) in Clarke S. and Mosqueira I. (2002). A Council on a European Community 1996-2009. Hong Kong Customs and Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2009). Trends Appendix II of the CITES Convention. preliminary assessment of European Action Plan for the Conservation and Statistics Department, Hong Kong. in Global Shark Catch and Recent Report ref: FPA 01/CITES/07 to the participation in the shark fin trade. Management of Sharks. COM(2009) 40. Developments in Management. European Commission. Proceedings of the 4th European IATTC. (2006). Meeting Report, TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK. Elasmobranch Association Meeting European Commission. (2003). Council Working Group on Stock Assessment Rose C. and McLoughlin, K., (2001). Livorno (Italy) 2000. ICRAM ARPAT- Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003 of 26 7th Meeting Review of Stock Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2006). Review of shark finning in Australian GEA & Soc. Fr. Ichthyol 2002: 65–72. June 2003 on the removal of fins of Assessments, La Jolla California Confronting Shark Conservation fisheries. Bureau of Rural Sciences, sharks on board vessels. (USA) 15-19 May 2006. http://www. Head On! TRAFFIC International, Canberra, Australia. iattc.org/PDFFiles2/SAR-7-Meeting- Cambridge, UK. Report.pdf.

30 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 31 Annex I

Summaries of national and regional shark finning Northern Prawn Fishery: An industry-initiated possession Tasmania (November 2001): (Fisheries (Scalefish)R ules 2004, CCAMLR prohibitions prohibition is in place for all elasmobranchs, and includes the Rule 72). Shark finning is prohibited.A ll shark fins must be prohibition of retention of any parts of these species: landed with a corresponding body or trunk from which they Regulation: 2006. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/commonwealth/ came. All fishers are limited to a combined species limit of five Argentina northern-prawn/report/pubs/northern-prawn-report.pdf shark carcasses on a fishing vessel in Tasmanian state waters. Details: All directed fishing for sharks is prohibited, but there are For recreational fishers, the dorsal and pectoral fins must remain no concrete limits on shark bycatch and no measures specific to Regulation: Resolution N° 6 of March 12, 2009, Registry of Torres Strait Prawn Fishery: Sharks must be landed with fins attached to all sharks until they are landed. shark finning. federal fishing advice. attached. Maximum trip limit of five sharks, or 30kg of sharks, whichever is less: http://www.pzja.gov.au/resources/publications/ Western Australia (October 2000): (Fish Resources Management Details: None. Finning is banned; no enforcement measures are manage_notices/prawn_fishery/gn8_270202_61.pdf Regulations, 1995, Reg 16B). Shark finning is prohibited.A ll shark Colombia mentioned. fins must be landed with the corresponding body. Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery: Shark finning is not permitted. Regulation: Prohibition on finning in Colombian waters, 2007. Daily catch limit of 100kg trunked weight for gulper sharks Victoria (1972): (Fisheries Regulations 2009, No. 93). All sharks Australia must be landed with fins attached. Sharks must be landed whole Details: Fins must be attached to the body at the point of North West Slope Trawl Fishery: Shark finning is not permitted. or in ‘carcass’ form (with head and guts removed). landing. Permits are required for transporting and shipping fins Regulation: Direction No. SSJFDIR 2 - Prohibition on Shark Daily catch limit of 100kg trunked weight for gulper sharks once sharks have been landed. Transshipping of fins at sea is Finning (26/10/2005). 1991 Fisheries Act. Various State and prohibited. Territory regulations. New South Wales (June 1999): (Fisheries Management Act Brazil 1994, Section 8 Notification –F ishing Closure The Taking and Details: Central/Federal government regulates ‘Commonwealth’ Mutilation of Sharks, 4 June 1999, NSW Government Gazette No. Regulation: Portaria (Decree) 121, 24 August, 1998, of the Cook Islands (Federal) waters, from three to 200 nautical miles offshore. 66 (regazetted September 2006)). All sharks must be landed with Ministry of the Environment and IBAMA. States and Territories are responsible for regulations governing fins (caudal, dorsal and pectoral) attached, even when the shark Details: Finning by Cook Islands vessels in the EEZ (exclusive their own waters out to three nautical miles offshore. has been cut into portions. All parts other than head, gills, guts Details: The Regulation prohibits discarding shark carcasses from economic zone) and on the high seas is prohibited. The total and belly flaps (with ventral fins attached) must remain on board which the fins have been removed. Transportation on board and weight of fins should not exceed 5% of the total weight of Commonwealth: Finning has been prohibited in tuna longline until the vessel berths. The closure applies to recreational and landing of shark fins must comply with regulations on the product carcasses.1 fisheries since 2000, when permit conditions were amended commercial fishers. weight: the total weight of fins shall not exceed 5% of the total to prevent concession holders from possessing, carrying and weight of carcasses. All unloaded fins and carcasses must be landing shark fins that are not attached to the trunk of a shark. In Northern Territory (2003): There is no Territory-wide legislated weighed and the weights reported to IBAMA at the end of each Costa Rica 2005, shark finning was prohibited in all relevant Commonwealth ban on shark finning.A shark finning ban is written into the fishing trip (fins cannot be kept on board from previous trips). Fisheries, that is, those that interacted with sharks. The Direction license conditions of commercial shark fishers (Northern Regulation: Article 40 of the 2005 Fisheries Law Article prohibits the carrying, retaining, or landing of dorsal, pectoral, Territory Offshore Net and Line Fishery) and other fisheries with 139: Describes the penalties for public officials who permit caudal, pelvic and anal fins for all shark species unless these incidental shark catch (Barramundi, Coastal Net and Coastal Line Canada the landings of fins detached from shark carcasses, and for are attached to the shark carcass (either naturally attached or Fisheries). The following fin to meat ratios apply: 6.5% fresh or fishermen who practice the finning. otherwise attached, e.g. with cable ties or a bagging system). frozen fin as a proportion of trunk weight; 13% fresh or frozen Regulation: Finning prohibition, 1994; Atlantic Fisheries This ban was not put into legislation but implemented as a fin as a proportion of fillet weight; and 3% fresh or frozen fin Management Plan, 2001. Details: Regulation AJDIP/47–2001 required fins to be condition on all permits and Statutory Fishing Rights. The as a proportion of whole weight. In addition, there is a trip limit landed attached to shark carcasses. This was replaced by conditions vary between fisheries: in the manner in which of 500kg converted whole weight of shark in fisheries with Details: Finning is prohibited in Canadian waters and by Canadian AJDIP/415–2003, permitting fins to be landed detached from the fins are allowed to be attached to the carcass (naturally or incidental shark catch. There are bans on possession of sharks licensed vessels outside the EEZ. No shark carcass may be shark carcasses and fins to be landed separately if the bodies had otherwise); in the species that are permitted to be finned at sea; in other commercial fisheries. For recreational fishers, there is a discarded at sea, with or without fins, once it has been taken been used for bait, which was widely criticised. It was replaced in and in the numbers and types of fins that can be removed and possession limit of 3 sharks of any species. on board. Fins from the commercial fishery may be sold, traded 2005 by Article 40 of the National Fisheries Law, which requires retained with the carcass. In addition, shark bycatch limits are in or bartered only in proper proportion to carcasses sold, traded shark fins to be landed naturally attached to carcasses. This place for most Commonwealth Fisheries. Fish receiver permits Queensland (December 2002): (Fisheries Act 1994, Fisheries or bartered with a maximum of 5% by weight fins per dressed applies to all vessels fishing in the EEZ, wherever Costa Rican state that shark fins cannot be received without a shark carcass. Regulations 1995). It is an offence to possess a shark fin on board a carcass weight. Fins may not be stored aboard the vessel after vessels fish and foreign vessels that offload in Costa Rica. boat without possessing the body of the shark. A fisher should have associated carcasses are sold, traded or bartered and must be The Commonwealth East Coast Tuna and Billfish Fishery: Sharks a corresponding number of fins and bodies. Sharks must be divided weighed and monitored at the time of landing. must be landed with fins attached. Limit of 20 sharks per trip into portions in a manner that allows an inspector to count the Ecuador written into permit conditions. number of sharks. No sharks may be taken by the Trawl Fishery. Cape Verde Regulation: A shark finning ban was stipulated in Ministerial Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery: Sharks must be landed with South Australia (2003): (Fisheries Management (General) Agreement No 097 published in the OfficialR egistry No 263 in fins attached. Limit of 20 sharks per trip, with an additional limit Regulations 2007 – 17.12.2009, Section 18). All sharks must be Regulation: Résolution 3/2005, 21 February, 2005. 27 August 1993. In July 2007, Executive Decree No 486 (Expedir of 100 pelagic sharks for single jurisdiction trips on the high seas, landed with fins (dorsal, pectoral and anal) attached. It is illegal to las normas para la regulación de la pesca incidental del recurso written into permit conditions. ‘mutilate’ a shark at sea. ‘Mutilate,’ in relation to a shark, does not Details: None available. The practice of finning is prohibited in the tiburón) published in Official Registry No 137 to replace Executive include the removal of pelvic fins and claspers and the removal of Cape Verde EEZ. Decree No 2130 of October 2004. Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery the tail at the sub-terminal notch, leaving the caudal lobe attached ScalefishFishery: Sharks must be landed with fins still attached. to the body. Details: Executive Decree No 2130 of October 2004 had banned

32 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 33 the sale and export of shark fins in Ecuador, but was repealed Gambia IOTC Namibia largely due to resulting unprecedented smuggling of shark fins and loss of product traceability. Under Decree 486, shark fin trade Regulation: 2004. Regulation: 2005. Regulation: The Marine Resources Act of 2000 (Act No. 27 is permitted under controlled conditions aimed at maintaining of 2000). traceability and chain of custody. Shark finning and directed shark Details: Sharks should be landed with fins intact, and the Details: Full utilisation is required (only head, skin and guts fishing is prohibited. Meat of sharks taken as bycatch must be remaining parts of the shark should be used and not discarded. may be discarded). Landed fins are not to exceed 5% of landed Details: The Act generally prohibits the at-sea discard of any fully utilised. shark weight. The live release of incidentally caught sharks is commercially caught or by-caught marine resources, including encouraged but not required. sharks. Observers are onboard most vessels included in this GFCM fishery, and it is their duty to report on any sharks that are Egypt discarded. Namibia’s National Shark Plan, adopted in 2003 but Regulation: 2005. Israel not yet implemented, recommends the formulation of legislation Details: A decree from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Marine Resources Act to prohibit finning of any shark prohibits shark fishing throughout Egyptian Red Sea territorial Details: Full utilisation is required (only head, skin and guts Regulation: 1980. species and require the retention of all sharks from which fins waters to 12 miles from the shore. may be discarded). Landed fins are not to exceed 5% of landed were removed (although the removal of pelvic and caudal fins shark weight. The live release of incidentally caught sharks is Details: All sharks are protected in Israeli waters. is prohibited to enable carcasses to be identified to species encouraged but not required. level). These measures are still pending. Currently, law prohibits El Salvador dumping of biological materials in territorial waters and discards. Japan Regulation: Diario Oficial Tomo No. 373. December 2006. Guinea Regulation: 2008. NEAFC Details: Shark finning is prohibited. Sharks must be landed Regulation: 2009. with fins attached naturally (with at least a quarter of the fin Details: All Japanese vessels, except for far seas and coastal Regulation: 2007. still attached). This applies to El Salvador waters and wherever Details: None available. Finning is banned in all territorial waters. vessels operating and landing outside Japanese waters, are Salvadorean vessels fish. The sale or export of fins is prohibited required to land all the parts of sharks (although heading, gutting Details: Full utilisation is required (only head, skin and guts (be they fresh, frozen or dried) without the corresponding body. and skinning are allowed). may be discarded). Landed fins are not to exceed 5% of landed Anyone wishing to land sharks must provide 48 hours notice of Honduras shark weight. The live release of incidentally caught sharks is the expected arrival date and landing location. Sharks can only be encouraged but not required. landed at authorised sites. Regulation: No. 02-2010, 5 January 2010. Marshall Islands

Details: The regulation established a moratorium on shark Details: Targeted shark fishing was banned in 2004.2 New Caledonia European Union (all Member States) fishing (catch, commercialization, and export of sharks and shark products) for the Pacific and Caribbean Sea. Regulation: Province Nord - n°243-2006. Regulation: Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003. Mexico Details: Shark fishing is prohibited in coastal areas. Offshore, Details: The Regulation prohibits finning in EU waters and by IATTC Regulation: Mexican Official Standard Rule NOM-029- tuna longliners with special permits are permitted to remove fins EU vessels worldwide. Removal of shark fins on board vessels PESC-2006, adopted May 2007. on board. The tuna longline fleet uses monofilament line as a is prohibited, but a derogation allows Member States to issue Regulation: 2005. means to avoid shark bycatch. No regulation yet exists in Province special permits for on-board fin removal under requirements Details: Finning is prohibited especially for vessels > 10.5 m; Sud, but the regulation adopted in Province Nord is to be adopted related to justification of need. Currently, the majority of the Details: Full utilisation is required (only head, skin and guts sharks should be fully utilised and may not be landed unless their for the whole territory. Spanish and Portuguese longline vessels are covered by such may be discarded). Landed fins are not to exceed 5% of landed carcasses are also onboard. Rules apply in Mexican waters and permits. The theoretical correspondence between the weight of shark weight. The live release of incidentally caught sharks is wherever Mexican vessels fish. fins retained and the parts of the bodies retained on board is to encouraged but not required. Nicaragua be established by the Member States, but cannot exceed 5% of the whole (“live”) weight of the shark catch. Fins may be landed NAFO Regulations: Decreto No. 9-2005 Reglamento de la Ley No. 489, and transhipped separately from other shark products. ICCAT Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura: Article 42.3 Prohibitions on shark. La Regulation: 2005. Asamblea Nacional del la Republica de Nicaragua Law No. 489, Regulation: 2004. No 251, 2004. French Polynesia Details: Full utilisation is required (only head, skin and guts Details: Full utilisation is required (only head, skin and guts may be discarded). Landed fins are not to exceed 5% of landed Details: Decreto No. 9-2005 prohibits vessels from having fins Regulation: April 2006. may be discarded). Landed fins are not to exceed 5% of landed shark weight. The live release of incidentally caught sharks is on board or landing fins with a weight exceeding 5% of the shark weight. The live release of incidentally caught sharks is encouraged but not required. total weight of the sharks. Fins cannot be exported unless the Details: Finning is prohibited in French Polynesia waters for a encouraged but not required. exporters can demonstrate that the meat has been sold. Article period of 19 years from 2006, as is the retention of sharks and 75 of Law No. 489 No. 251 prohibits capture of sharks in marine the trade in all shark parts and products, except for shortfin mako.

34 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 35 waters for the sole purpose of finning (removal of fins including Samoa (Western) waters of other States and on the high seas, and to vessels percent of the total, dressed weight of shark carcasses landed the tail and disposing of the carcass at sea). This also applies to of third countries in Spanish waters. It is prohibited to hold or found on board the vessel. The Act also requires NMFS to freshwater sharks in Lake Cocibolca and to the landing, transport, Details: A 5% fin:carcass weight ratio limit applies.3 on board, unload, tranship or transport sharks’ fins without initiate discussion with other nations to develop international storage and commercialisation of shark fins: fresh, frozen, dried the corresponding weight of the rest of the body. Conversion agreements on shark finning and data collection. or salted. coefficients are to be applied to determine the correlation SEAFO between the number of fins and the weight of the rest of the In addition, since 2008, all sharks landed from US Atlantic and body. In cases where fins or the rest of the shark’s body are held Gulf of Mexico waters must have their fins naturally attached Niue Regulation: 2006 on board, transhipped, unloaded or transported separately, they through offloading. Fins may be cut as long as they remain should be accompanied by a document certifying the placing on naturally attached to the carcass with at least a small flap of uncut Details: Shark finning is prohibited.3 Details: Full utilisation is required (only head, skin and guts the market of each part, as applicable. As a Member State of the skin. Sharks may be eviscerated and the heads may be removed, may be discarded). Landed fins are not to exceed 5% of landed European Union, Spain must abide by the EU finning regulation. but they cannot be filleted or cut into pieces at sea. shark weight. The live release of incidentally caught sharks is Oman encouraged but not required. United Arab Emirates WCPFC Regulation: Pre-1999. Article 16 of the Executive Regulations of the Marine Fishing and Living Aquatic Resources Protection Law. Seychelles Regulation: UAE Federal Law No. 23 concerning exploitation, Regulation: 2005, revised 2008. protection and development of the living aquatic resources, 1999. Details: It is strictly forbidden to throw any shark part or shark Regulation: 2006 Regulation under the 1987 Fisheries Act. Ministerial Decree Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries. Details: Full utilisation is required (only head, skin and guts waste in the sea or on the shore. It is prohibited to separate shark may be discarded). Landed fins are not to exceed 5% of landed fins and tails unless done according to the conditions set by the Details: The Regulation forbids finning by foreign vessels licensed Details: Article 44 forbids the catch the living aquatic creatures to shark weight. The live release of incidentally caught sharks is competent authority. No shark part shall be handled, marketed or to operate in Seychelles EEZ and by local vessels of more than 24 extract their eggs, skins, fins, and any other parts thereof.A rticle encouraged but not required. An initial exemption for fishing exported without a license from the competent authority. metres in length by requiring vessels to land fin to the quantity of 50 forbids the discarding of dead fish wastes and carcasses of vessels under 24m was removed in 2008. no more than 5% of the mass of dressed shark carcass. This rule whales and sharks in the fishing waters. does not apply to Seychelles vessels of less than 24 metres in Palau length (the majority of the current fleet). Additional References: United States Regulation: Marine Protection Bill September 2003. 1. Anon. (2005). Commercial Fisheries, Sharks. Government of Western Australia. Strengthened in 2009. Sierra Leone Regulation: Shark Finning Prohibition Act: Public Law 106-557, Department of Fisheries. CR204. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/cf/Sharks/ December 2000.; effective March 2002. Amendment to the CommFisheriesShark_2005.pdf Details: Shark fishing is banned. Fishermen must release sharks, Regulation: 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Consolidated Atlantic dead or alive, even if caught as bycatch. Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Federal 2. Anon. (2008). Australian Tuna and Billfish Longline Fisheries. Attachment 7. Details: Sharks shall not be landed without fins. Register Notice 73 FR 40658, July 2008 (corrected version of Bycatch and Discarding Workplan November 1, 2008 to October 31, 2010. June 2008 notice). Australian Fisheries Management Authority. http://www.environment.gov. Panama au/coasts/fisheries/commonwealth/southern-western-tuna-billfish/pubs/ South Africa Details: The Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, which took attachment-7.pdf Regulation: March 2006. effect in 2002, extended 1993 rules for the US Atlantic finning Regulation: South Africa Marine Living Resource Act, 1998. ban to US Pacific waters, inter alia. A 2008 regulation under the 3. Anon. (2009). Shark Finning Report to Congress. Issued Pursuant to the Shark Details: Finning is prohibited in all Panamanian waters. Industrial NMFS Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Finning Prohibition Act (Public Law 106-557). U.S. Department of Commerce. fishermen have to land sharks with their fins attached naturally to Details: The Regulation applies throughout South African waters Plan required that all sharks landed from the US Atlantic and Gulf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries the body, with at least 25% of the fin-body union intact. Artisanal and to South African vessels wherever they fish.F inning is of Mexico have their fins naturally attached.A bill pending in the Service. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/ReportsToCongress/ fishers may land the fins separately, but the weight ratio must prohibited; fins can be separated from carcasses, but must be US Congress, the Shark Conservation Act, would (if adopted) SharkFinningReport09.pdf be 5% fins to whole weight. Trading in fins from finned sharks landed together with a fin:carcass (dressed weight) ratio of 8% extend the fins-attached rule to the US Pacific, inter alia. is also prohibited. Fins may be traded, but only if traders have a for domestic vessels, 14% for EU vessels, and 5% for other 4. Lack, M. and Meere, F. (2009). Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for Sharks: certificate that indicates the origin of the fins. If the fins can be foreign vessels. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, implemented Guidance for Pacific Island Countries and Territories on the Conservation and shown to have come from finned sharks, there is a fine of up through a 2002 NMFS regulation, prohibits any person under Management of Sharks. Shellack Pty Ltd. http://www.ffa.int/system/files/ to $100,000 for trading them, regardless of whether the sharks US jurisdiction from engaging in finning, possessing shark fins Pacific%20Islands%20RPOA%20Sharks%20Final%20Report%20__3_.pdf were finned in waters where finning is not prohibited. Spain aboard a US fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass, and landing shark fins without the corresponding carcass. Foreign 5. McCoy, M. (2006). Addressing Shark Finning in FFA Member Countries: Issues Regulation: Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and fishing vessels are also prohibited from finning in US EEZ, and considerations. Gillett, Preston and Associates Inc. Papua New Guinea Food, laying down specific conditions for the catching of from landing shark fins without the corresponding carcass in a sharks, 2002. US port, and from transshipping shark fins in the US EEZ. The 6. Patterson, HM and Tudman, MJ. (2009). Chondrichthyan guide for fisheries Details: Longliners not authorised under the Shark Management regulation established a “rebuttable presumption” that any shark managers: A practical guide to mitigating chondrichthyan bycatch. Bureau of Plan cannot target sharks or use wire leaders and have no export Details: The order prohibits shark finning (removal of fins fins possessed on board a US fishing vessel, or landed from any Rural Sciences and Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. http:// license for sharks.3 and discarding the carcass at sea). It applies to all Spanish fishing vessel, were taken, held, or landed in violation of these www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1439795/chondrichthyan-guide. vessels in waters under national sovereignty or jurisdiction, in regulations if the total wet weight of the shark fins exceeds 5 pdf

36 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 37 Annex II Annex III

ICCAT Recommendation on the Conservation of extent possible, that are caught incidentally and are not used for Extracts from reports of meetings of the Indian Though not specified in Resolution 05/05, the adoption of this Sharks food and/or subsistence. Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Committees and management measure appears to be in response to concerns Working Parties, 2008–2010 about the threats to shark populations from fishing and the RECOMMENDATION BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 7 in 2005, the SCRS shall review the assessment of shortfin practice of shark fining. FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS CONCERNING mako sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus) and recommend management Report of the Twelfth Session of the Indian Ocean THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS CAUGHT IN ASSOCIATION alternatives for consideration by the Commission, and reassess Tuna Commission The percentage fins:body weight ratio requirement has no clear WITH FISHERIES MANAGED BY ICCAT (November 2004) blue shark (Prionaca glauca) and shortfin mako no later than 2007. Muscat, Oman, 7-11 June 2008 scientific basis as a conservation measure for sharks in the Indian IOTC-2008-S12-R[E] Ocean, rather it appears to be a broad brush measure to slow RECALLING that the United Nations Food and Agriculture 8 CPCs shall, where possible, undertake research to identify down the rate of fishing or deter fishing on sharks by not allowing Organization (FAO) International Plan of Action for Sharks calls on ways to make fishing gears more selective. Other conservation and management matters fins only to be landed and requiring vessels to return to port more States, within the framework of their respective competencies often to unload fins and body parts (and therefore not be fishing and consistent with international law, to cooperate through 9 CPCs shall, where possible, conduct research to identify 37. The Commission noted the concerns raised by some so much). regional fisheries organizations with a view to ensuring the shark nursery areas. Members in relation to Resolution 05/05 Concerning the sustainability of shark stocks as well as to adopt a National Plan Conservation of Shark Caught in Association with Fisheries The choice of what percentage fins:body weight to apply is of Action for the conservation and management of sharks; 10 The Commission shall consider appropriate assistance to Managed by IOTC, that this Resolution lacks clarity in relation to not straight forward. There is a wide range of reported fin to developing CPCs for the collection of data on their shark catches. Paragraph 4 and whether “5% of the weight of sharks onboard body ratios both within and between species. This may be CONSIDERING that many sharks are part of pelagic ecosystems up to the first point of landing” refers to the dressed weight or due to differences in the number and type of fins used in the in the Convention area, and that tunas and tuna-like species are 11 This recommendation applies only to sharks caught in live weight of sharks retained. The Commission recognised that calculations, the type of carcass weight used, or the kind of captured in fisheries targeting sharks; association with fisheries managed by ICCAT. this is a complex issue and ratios vary depending on factors processing for dressed carcasses. Variation in fin cutting practices such as the species concerned, processing methods and the may also lead to differences in calculated ratios. There is currently Recognising the need to collect data on catch, effort, discards, set of fins retained. The Commission agreed that, as an interim considerable uncertainty among RFMOs and shark experts about and trade, as well as information on the biological parameters of measure, CPCs having concerns with the current lack of clarity what percentage level is appropriate. many species, in order to conserve and manage sharks; The Recommendations or Resolutions on shark finning adopted in the Resolution should notify the Secretariat of the manner in by other RFMOs are very similar to the above. which they are interpreting the current wording of the Resolution, Given the broad brush nature of the ratio measure, it is unlikely THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION including information on processing methods and fin retention to address any sustainability issues that might exist for particular OF ATLANTIC TUNAS (ICCAT) RECOMMENDS THAT: practices. This information should be provided in sufficient species and it does not necessarily mean that the species most detail to enable jurisdictions engaged in compliance activities to vulnerable to fishing will be better off (to achieve this, species- 1 Contracting Parties, Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, determine a vessel‘s level of compliance with the Resolution. specific and even fleet-specific ratios would be required, as well Entities or Fishing Entities (CPCs) shall annually report Task I and The Commission agreed that this and other relevant information as accepted criteria for calculating fin weight to carcass weight Task II data for catches of sharks, in accordance with ICCAT data will be reviewed by the Working Party on Ecosystem and Bycatch ratios). The measure also has limited ability to reduce shark reporting procedures, including available historical data. and the Scientific Committee and a report be provided by the finning practices. Scientific Committee on options to clarify Resolution 05/05 for 2 CPCs shall take the necessary measures to require that their consideration at the 2009 Commission meeting. Given the considerable uncertainties associated with deriving fishermen fully utilise their entire catches of sharks. Full utilization an appropriate ratio and the difficulties ensuring fishers comply is defined as retention by the fishing vessel of all parts of the Report of the Fourth Session of the IOTC Working Party on with it, a wide range of experts, including the IUCN Shark shark excepting head, guts and skins, to the point of first landing. Ecosystems and Bycatch specialist group (IOTC-2008-WPEB-INF01) and the European Bangkok, Thailand 20 - 22 October 2008 Elasmobranch Association (IOTC-2008-WPEB-INF04) have 3 CPCs shall require their vessels to not have onboard fins that IOTC-2008-WPEB-R[E] recently recommended that sharks should be landed with their total more than 5% of the weight of sharks onboard, up to the fins attached. first point of landing. CPCs that currently do not require fins and Technical discussions on IOTC Resolution 05/05 concerning carcasses to be offloaded together at the point of first landing the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries The WP is in agreement with these expert opinions. The shall take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the managed by IOTC abandonment of the current measure would remove the need for 5% ratio through certification, monitoring by an observer, or other deriving what would be an arbitrary fin to body weight ratio and appropriate measures. 35. In response to a request from the Commission for more enforcing it. The alternative measure of landing sharks with their information on the technical aspects of IOTC Resolution 05/05 fins attached could be expected, if fully implemented, to end the 4 The ratio of fin-to-body weight of sharks described in Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with practice of finning and also facilitate the collection of data that paragraph 3 shall be reviewed by the SCRS and reported back to fisheries managed by IOTC, specifically paragraph 4 “CPCs shall would be highly beneficial in shark stock assessments (e.g. data the Commission in 2005 for revision, if necessary. require their vessels to not have onboard fins that total more on species, sex ratios, numbers and size distributions of catches). than 5% of the weight of sharks onboard, up to the first point of The ultimate production of shark stock assessments would then 5 fishing vessels are prohibited from retaining on board, landing. CPCs that currently do not require fins and carcasses to underpin any future conservation and management actions. transshipping or landing any fins harvested in contravention of be offloaded together at the point of first landing shall take the this Recommendation. necessary measures to ensure compliance with the 5% ratio In case the current measures are pursued, port sampling of through certification, monitoring by an observer, or other appropriate pectoral fins landed (pectoral fins are typically always landed) 6 in fisheries that are not directed at sharks, CPCs shall measures”, the WPEB recommended the following advice be put can provide information on numbers of sharks caught by species encourage the release of live sharks, especially juveniles, to the forward to the Scientific Committee for its consideration. groups (pectoral fins can be used to identify species groups).

38 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 39 Report of the Eleventh Session of the Scientific Committee populations from fishing and the practice of shark finning collection of data that would be highly beneficial in shark stock iii. Maintaining the use of the fin:body weight ratios will of the IOTC assessments (e.g. data on species, sex ratios, numbers and size preclude the collection of essential information on species- Victoria, Seychelles, 1-5 December 2008 ii. The current percentage fins:body weight ratio requirement has distributions of catches), that the Commission may require from level interactions with fishing fleets, crucial for accurate stock IOTC-2008-SC-R[E] no clear scientific basis as a conservation measure for sharks in the SC [Table 4] assessments for sharks; the Indian Ocean, rather it appears to be aimed at slowing down Sharks the rate of fishing or to deter fishing on sharks by not allowing vi. The ultimate production of shark stock assessments would iv. Current scientific evidence clearly indicates that percentage fins only to be landed and requiring vessels to return to port more then underpin any future conservation and management actions fins:body weight varies widely among species, fin types used in 57. In response to the Commission‘s request for more often to unload fins and body parts calculations, the type of carcass weight used (whole or dressed), information on the technical aspects of IOTC Resolution 05/05 vii. The SC agreed that operational factors (e.g. storage methods and the method of processing used to remove the fins (fin cutting Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association iii. Maintaining the use of the fin:body weight ratios will and product processing) are likely to make a requirement for the technique); with fisheries managed by IOTC, specifically paragraph 4 “CPCs preclude the collection of essential information on species- natural attachment of fins to the shark carcass difficult for some shall require their vessels to not have onboard fins that total level interactions with fishing fleets, crucial for accurate stock operators to apply v. It was recognised that the best way to guarantee that sharks more than 5% of the weight of sharks onboard, up to the first assessments for sharks; are fully utilised is to require that the trunks be landed with the point of landing. CPCs that currently do not require fins and viii. The SC agreed that all fins landed should be able to be fins attached, and if fully implemented, this would facilitate the carcasses to be offloaded together at the point of first landing iv. Current scientific evidence clearly indicates that percentage matched to a carcass. In the cases where fins have been collection of data that would be highly beneficial in shark stock shall take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with fins:body weight varies widely among species, fin types used in removed from the body prior to the landing, the SC agreed assessments (e.g. data on species, sex ratios, numbers and size the 5% ratio through certification, monitoring by an observer, calculations, the type of carcass weight used (whole or dressed), that they should be stored in such a way that they can be distributions of catches), that the Commission may require from or other appropriate measures”, the SC recommended that the and the method of processing used to remove the fins (fin cutting cross-referenced to the carcasses – for example, they may be the SC [Table 4]; Commission notes that: technique) numbered or tagged for identification between carcasses and fins. vi. The ultimate production of shark stock assessments would i. Though not specified in Resolution 05/05, the SC is of the v. It was recognised that the best way to guarantee that sharks then underpin any future conservation and management actions; opinion that the adoption of this management measure appears are fully utilised is to require that the trunks be landed with the 58. The SC recommended that the fin:body weight ratio measure to be in response to concerns about the threats to shark fins attached, and if fully implemented, this would facilitate the be replaced with a resolution that requires shark fins to be landed vii. The SC agreed that operational factors (e.g. storage methods attached to the body, either naturally, or by other means‘.{Table 4} and product processing) are likely to make a requirement for the natural attachment of fins to the shark carcass difficult for some Table 4 | List of technical measures to assess status of sharks with respect to conservation and stock 13.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION - GENERAL smaller operators to apply. assessment. Information obtained from a sub-working group formed during the 2008 meeting of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch to discuss shark fin:body weight issue. 191. The following recommendations are addressed specifically to viii. The SC agreed that all fins landed should be able to be Type of Measure (ranked Pros Cons Notes the Commission and/or relate to the work of the Secretariat. ... matched to a carcass. In the cases where fins have been in decreasing preference) removed from the body prior to the landing, the SC agreed that 1. Land whole shark with Full information can Possible increase Highly recommended for stock assessment and 27. In response to the Commission‘s request for more they should be stored in such a way that they can be immediately fins attached to the body be obtained and will of discards conservation measures information on the technical aspects of IOTC Resolution 05/05 cross-referenced to the carcasses – for example, they may be enable robust estimates If a vessel has no planned use for the shark bodies, Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association numbered and wired or bagged together they may be numbered of catches by species, this measure would require that storage space that and a wide range with fisheries managed by IOTC, specifically paragraph 4 “CPCs or tagged for identification between carcasses and fins would otherwise be used for target species would of morphometric shall require their vessels to not have onboard fins that total have to be used for sharks. Furthermore, given the relationships can be more than 5% of the weight of sharks onboard, up to the first 28. The SC recommended that the fin:body weight ratio measure presence of fins on the bodies, the stacking of the derived bodies is less efficacious and overall, fewer sharks point of landing. CPCs that currently do not require fins and be replaced with a resolution that requires shark fins to be can be stored. carcasses to be offloaded together at the point of first landing landed attached to the body, either naturally, or by other means. shall take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with (Paragraph 58) 2. Land shark with fins Full information can be Possible increase Recommended for stock assessment and separated from carcasses obtained and will enable of discards conservation measures the 5% ratio through certification, monitoring by an observer, but stored in a way that robust estimates of or other appropriate measures”, the SC recommended that the One possibility (among others) is to have the they can immediately be catches by species. Less complete set of fins for a given shark placed in a Commission notes that: (Paragraph 57) related to a given carcass precise morphometric plastic bag, and attached to the torso This measure relationships than in (1) enables a more optimised use of the haul capacity i. Though not specified in Resolution 05/05, the SC is of the can be expected and is easier to apply on vessels opinion that the adoption of this management measure appears 3. Land fins and body None Poor level of Not recommended by sharks specialist groups to be in response to concerns about the threats to shark trunks within required information (including the IUCN Shark specialist group populations from fishing and the practice of shark finning; fin-to-body ratios all obtained. No -IOTC-2008-WPEB-INF01 and the European species combined (status reliable estimates Elasmobranch Association - IOTC-2008- WPEB- ii. The current percentage fins:body weight ratio requirement has quo) of total catch or INF04) catches by species no clear scientific basis as a conservation measure for sharks in Cannot be used for stock assessment are possible. the Indian Ocean, rather it appears to be aimed at slowing down The 2% or 5% ratio used respectively for dressed the rate of fishing or to deter fishing on sharks by not allowing and round weight do not reflect the variability fins only to be landed and requiring vessels to return to port more among species cutting technique or fin set often to unload fins and body parts; retained.

40 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 41 Report of the Fifth Session of the IOTC Working Party on to the carcass in a plastic bag was ecologically unacceptable. ie. Japan, China, Korea and invited experts recommended to Ecosystems and Bycatch Rather, fins might be partially sliced through and folded over, thus investigate this issue further. Mombasa, Kenya 12 - 14 October 2009 minimizing storage space while remaining attached. IOTC-2009-WPEB-R[E] 51. The SC unanimously recognised that there was a need to 40. Therefore, the WPEB reiterated its previous recommendation collect more biological information on sharks and more detailed 3.3 CONSERVATION OF SHARKS CAUGHT IN ASSOCIATION (i.e. to land sharks with fins naturally attached) because that is species composition information, and agreed with the principle WITH FISHERIES MANAGED BY IOTC (DISCUSSION ON the best way to ensure correct catch statistics, and to facilitate that shark fins should be matched to a specific carcass for RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LANDING SHARK FINS). collection of biological information, as required to assess shark such biological research, as agreed at SC11 (paragraph 27, 28). populations. The WPEB also considered that the landing of sharks However it was considered that the mechanism for solving 36. Sharks are taken as bycatch in several Indian Ocean tuna with fins naturally attached was the best way to reduce or avoid the shark fin problem was a matter for consideration by the fisheries. IOTC Resolution 05/05, paragraph 4 states that: “CPCs the practice of finning. Compliance Committee. shall require their vessels to not have onboard fins that total more than 5% of the weight of sharks onboard, up to the first point of 41. In summary, the WPEB recommended that all sharks be 13. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN 2009 landing. CPCs that currently do not require fins and carcasses landed with fins naturally attached to the body. to be offloaded together at the point of first landing shall take 13.1 RECOMMENDATIONS – ON DATA AND RESEARCH the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the 5% 3.9 RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO SHARKS ratio through certification, monitoring by an observer, or other 9. The SC unanimously recognised that there was a need to appropriate measures.” 52. The WPEB recommends that: collect more biological information on sharks and more detailed species composition information, and agreed with the principle 37. In 2008, the WPEB recommended that, since the percentage The 5% fin to body weight ratio measure be replaced with that shark fins should be matched to a specific carcass for of fins to body weight ratio requirement has no clear scientific a resolution requiring sharks to be landed with fins naturally such biological research, as agreed at SC11 (paragraph 27, 28). basis, sharks should be landed with their fins naturally attached. attached to the body. (paragraph 51) This is required for the collection of reliable landing data, which would allow stock assessments. The Secretariat explained [OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ALSO LISTED ARE NOT Report of the Fourteenth Session of the Indian Ocean Tuna that, during last meeting of the IOTC Commission held in Bali INCLUDED HERE.] Commission in March-April 2009, several proposals were tabled in relation Busan, Korea, 1-5 March 2010 to conservation measures of sharks caught in association with Report of the Twelfth Session of the Scientific Committee of IOTC-2010-S14-R[E] fisheries managed by IOTC. These included the recommendation the IOTC of WPEB, and others relating to the methods by which shark fins Victoria, Seychelles, 30 November-4 December 2009 The meeting report does not refer to the inconclusive discussions might be landed. However, a consensus was not reach on this IOTC-2009-SC-R[E] on implementation of IOTC Resolution 05/05. matter and the status quo recommendation is still in place. In response to a request from the Commission for more information Sharks on the technical aspects of this issue, it was again discussed by the WPEB. 49. Following from the Commission’s request in 2008 for more information on the technical aspects of IOTC Resolution 05/05 38. It was noted that the 5% ratio of fins to body weight has Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association no clear scientific basis. There is a wide range of reported fin to with fisheries managed by IOTC, specifically the ‘5% rule’, and body weight ratios both within and between species. Factors the recommendations made by SC in 2008, the WPEB in 2009 contributing to this variability include: differences in fin sizes proposed a refinement to the [SC’s] 2008 recommendation that between species; ontogenetic changes in fin sizes within ‘the fin-body weight ratio measure be replaced with a resolution species; and also methodological differences (eg. in fin cutting that requires shark fins to be landed attached to the body, either practices; in the number and type of fins used in the calculations; naturally, or by other means’. In 2009 WPEB recommended that the type of carcass weight used; and the kind of processing this should read ‘fins naturally attached’. for dressed carcasses). It was noted that there is currently considerable uncertainty among RFMOs and shark experts about 50. Most CPCs supported such a recommendation as it was what percentage level is appropriate. agreed that the best way to reduce or avoid the pratice of shark finning, ensure accurate catch statistics, and facilitate the 39. It was noted that the 5% criterion, if enforced, would tend to collection of biological information is to ensure that all sharks reduce the wasteful practice of finning (ie. removing the fins and are landed with fins naturally attached to the body. However the discarding the carcass). It might also tend to reduce fishing effort, oriental longline countries (Japan, China, Korea) were opposed particularly on sharks, since vessels would need to return to port to it indicating that the 5% rule was already well established more frequently to unload. However, the 5% criterion would amongst tuna RFMOs and serving the purpose even if not fully, not be valid to collect correct catch statistics and to improve although it was noted there was a lack of evidence supporting the collection of biological sample. The WPEB further noted that that percentage due to the large variability in the fin:body weight the suggestion that fins could be detached and then re-attached ratio among sharks species. The oriental longline countries,

42 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 43 Annex IV

Annex IV. United Nations General Assembly I. Achieving sustainable fisheries UN General Assembly Sixty-third session (2008) UN General Assembly Sixty-first session (2006) Sustainable Fisheries Resolutions Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 63/112. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 61/105. 13. Reaffirms paragraph 10 of resolution 61/105 of 8 December Sustainable fisheries Sustainable fisheries UN General Assembly Sixty-fourth session (March 2010) 2006, and calls upon States, including through regional fisheries Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 64/72. management organizations or arrangements, to urgently adopt [Prelims are similar to those for the 64th session, as are operative [Prelims are similar to those for the 64th session, as are operative Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995A greement measures to fully implement the International Plan of Action for paragraphs on sharks; only those paragraphs covering shark paragraphs on sharks; only those paragraphs covering shark for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations the Conservation and Management of Sharks for directed and finning are therefore included here.] finning are therefore included here.] Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating nondirected shark fisheries, based on the best available scientific to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks information, through, inter alia, limits on catch or fishing effort, by I. Achieving sustainable fisheries I. Achieving sustainable fisheries and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and related instruments requiring that vessels flying their flag collect and regularly report data on shark catches, including species-specific data, discards 14. Calls upon States to take immediate and concerted action 10. Urges States, including those working through subregional or Extracts from preliminary paragraphs: and landings, undertaking, including through international to improve the implementation of and compliance with existing regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements, cooperation, comprehensive stock assessments of sharks, regional fisheries management organization or arrangement and to implement fully the International Plan of Action for the Recognising further the economic and cultural importance reducing shark by-catch and by-catch mortality, and, where national measures that regulate shark fisheries, in particular those Conservation and Management of Sharks, notably through the of sharks in many countries, the biological importance of scientific information is uncertain or inadequate, not increasing measures which prohibit or restrict fisheries conducted solely for collection of scientific data regarding shark catches and the sharks in the marine ecosystem as key predatory species, the fishing effort in directed shark fisheries until measures have been the purpose of harvesting shark fins, and, where necessary, to adoption of conservation and management measures, particularly vulnerability of certain shark species to overexploitation, the established to ensure the long-term conservation, management consider taking other measures, as appropriate, such as requiring where shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries fact that some are threatened with extinction, the need for and sustainable use of shark stocks and to prevent further that all sharks be landed with each fin naturally attached; have a significant impact on vulnerable or threatened shark measures to promote the long-term conservation, management declines of vulnerable or threatened shark stocks; stocks, in order to ensure the conservation and management of and sustainable use of shark populations and fisheries, and the 15. Requests the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United sharks and their long-term sustainable use, including by banning relevance of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation 14. Calls upon States to take immediate and concerted action Nations to prepare a report containing a comprehensive analysis directed shark fisheries conducted solely for the purpose of and Management of Sharks, adopted by the Food and Agriculture to improve the implementation of and compliance with existing of the implementation of the International Plan of Action for the harvesting shark fins and by taking measures for other fisheries Organization of the United Nations in 1999, in providing guidance regional fisheries management organization or arrangement and Conservation and Management of Sharks, as well as progress to minimise waste and discards from shark catches, and to on the development of such measures, national measures that regulate shark fisheries, in particular those in implementing paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution encourage the full use of dead sharks; measures which prohibit or restrict fisheries conducted solely for 62/177, for presentation to the Committee on Fisheries at its Reaffirming its support for the initiative of the Food and the purpose of harvesting shark fins, and, where necessary, to twenty-eighth session, in 2009; UN General Assembly Fifty-ninth session (2004) Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and relevant consider taking other measures, as appropriate, such as requiring Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 59/25. subregional and regional fisheries management organizations that all sharks be landed with each fin naturally attached; UN General Assembly Sixty-second session (2007) Sustainable fisheries and arrangements on the conservation and management of Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 62/177. sharks, and noting with concern that basic data on shark stocks 15. Calls upon regional fisheries management organizations Sustainable fisheries [Prelims are similar to those for the 64th session, as are operative and harvests continue to be lacking, that only a small number of with the competence to regulate highly migratory species paragraphs on sharks; only those paragraphs covering shark countries have implemented the International Plan of Action for to strengthen or establish precautionary, science-based [Prelims are similar to those for the 64th session, as are operative finning are therefore included here.] the Conservation and Management of Sharks, and that not all conservation and management measures, as appropriate, for paragraphs on sharks; only those paragraphs covering shark regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements sharks taken in fisheries within their convention areas consistent finning are therefore included here.] I. Achieving sustainable fisheries have adopted conservation and management measures for with the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and directed shark fisheries and for the regulation of by-catch of Management of Sharks, taking into account the Course of I. Achieving sustainable fisheries 73. Urges States, including those working through subregional sharks from other fisheries, Actions adopted at the second joint meeting of tuna regional or regional fisheries management organizations and fisheries management organizations and arrangements, held in 12. Calls upon States to take immediate and concerted action arrangements in implementing the International Plan of Action Expressing concern that, despite the adoption of General San Sebastian, Spain, from 29 June to 3 July 2009; to improve the implementation of and compliance with existing for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, to collect Assembly resolution 46/215 of 20 December 1991, the practice regional fisheries management organization or arrangement and scientific data regarding shark catches and to consider adopting of large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing still exists and remains a 16. Reiterates its request to the Food and Agriculture national measures that regulate shark fisheries, in particular those conservation and management measures, particularly where threat to marine living resources, Organization of the United Nations to prepare a report measures which prohibit or restrict fisheries conducted solely for shark catches from directed and nondirected fisheries have a containing a comprehensive analysis of the implementation the purpose of harvesting shark fins, and, where necessary, to significant impact on vulnerable or threatened shark stocks, in Expressing concern also over reports of continued losses of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and consider taking other measures, as appropriate, such as requiring order to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and of seabirds, particularly albatrosses and petrels, as well as Management of Sharks, as well as progress in implementing that all sharks be landed with each fin naturally attached; their long-term sustainable use, including by banning directed other marine species, including sharks, fin-fish species and paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 62/177 of 18 shark fisheries conducted solely for the purpose of harvesting marine turtles, as a result of incidental mortality in fishing December 2007; 13. Requests the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United shark fins and by taking measures for other fisheries to minimise operations, particularly longline fishing, and other activities, while Nations to prepare a report containing a comprehensive analysis waste and discards from shark catches, and to encourage the full Recognising considerable efforts by States and through various of the implementation of the International Plan of Action for the use of dead sharks; regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements Conservation and Management of Sharks, as well as progress to reduce by-catch in longline fishing, in implementing paragraph 11 of the present resolution, for 74. Requests the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United presentation to the Committee on Fisheries at its twenty-eighth Nations to develop programmes to assist States, including session, in 2009; developing States, in carrying out the tasks mentioned in paragraph 73 above, in particular the adoption of appropriate conservation and management measures, including the banning

44 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 45 Annex V

of directed shark fisheries conducted solely for the purpose of Annex V. World Conservation Congress ALSO AWARE that many States have strengthened or are harvesting shark fins; Recommendations on shark finning in the process of developing Plans of Action for Sharks and strengthening legislation to prevent shark finning, and that new 75. Reaffirms the requests contained in paragraph 50 of IUCN WCC RECOMMENDATION 4.114 fisheries-management measures often require pilot studies and a its resolution 58/14, and invites the Food and Agriculture Global policy against shark finning (2008) phase-in period in order to be implemented effectively; and Organization of the United Nations to report to the Secretary- AWARE that shark finning (removal and retention of the fins and General, for inclusion in his report on sustainable fisheries, on the discard at sea of the carcass) causes the death of millions ALARMED that recent global information on the trade and landing progress regarding the preparation of the study mentioned of sharks each year, threatens many shark populations and of shark fins indicates that finning is widely practiced, to a great therein, as well as the programmes mentioned in paragraph 74 potentially the very survival of species considered ‘Vulnerable’, extent without management or regulation, and that due to the above, and to consider at the sixty-second session of the General ‘Endangered’ or ‘Critically Endangered’, threatening not only biological characteristics of sharks, this results in unsustainable Assembly whether additional action is required; traditional sustainable fisheries but also recreational fisheries levels of mortality, requiring immediate action; of socio-economic importance;

UN General Assembly Fifty-eighth session (2003) The World Conservation Congress at its 4th Session in Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 58/14. RECALLING that Recommendation 3.116 Shark Finning adopted Barcelona, Spain, 5–14 October 2008: Sustainable fisheries by the 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress (Bangkok, 2004), 1. CALLS ON those States with fisheries that capture sharks, urged States with fisheries that capture sharks, whether in whether in directed fishery activities or as accidental by-catch of [Prelims are similar to those for the 64th session.] directed fishing activities or as accidental by-catch in other other fisheries, to require at the point of first landing that sharks fisheries, to require that sharks be landed only with their fins be landed only if their fins are naturally attached to their bodies, I. Achieving sustainable fisheries naturally attached to their bodies, or alternately, that the weight though allowing for partial detachment of fins to permit efficient of the fins retained on-board vessels must never exceed 5% storage and species identification; 48. Urges States, including those working through subregional of the weight of the carcasses (without heads or guts), and to or regional fisheries management organizations and take measures to ensure compliance with the 5% ratio through 2. CALLS ON those States that are members of Regional arrangements in implementing the International Plan of Action certification, monitoring by an observer, and other appropriate Fisheries Management Organizations to take the necessary for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, to collect measures when the landing of fins separate from carcasses diplomatic actions to improve and implement effectively existing scientific data regarding shark catches and to consider adopting is allowed; shark-related measures including the prohibition, within the conservation and management measures, particularly where scope of the corresponding jurisdiction, of onboard transportation shark catches from directed and nondirected fisheries have a RECOGNISING that in practice there is debate over the correct of fins separate from shark carcasses unless a certificate is significant impact on vulnerable or threatened shark stocks, in ratio that should be used between the weight of the fins and issued at the point of first landing to confirm that the fins were order to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and the weight of the carcass in order to be effective in preventing naturally attached to the bodies, and their long-term sustainable use, including by banning directed finning, and in addition that this system can be impractical, shark fisheries conducted solely for the purpose of harvesting particularly when limited human resources are charged with 3. RECOMMENDS that States evaluate the effectiveness of their shark fins and by taking measures for other fisheries to minimise monitoring the landings from industrial vessels with capacities control and capacity systems to ensure compliance with these waste and discards from shark catches, and to encourage the full of several-hundred tons, and that this hinders the collection of measures, drawing on the experience and resources of the Food use of dead sharks; catch data for individual species; and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the RFMOs, other States, and the Shark Specialist Group of the IUCN ALSO RECOGNISING that the most straightforward way to Species Survival Commission. implement a finning ban is to require that sharks be landed with their fins naturally attached to their bodies, which can be done in State members Australia, Japan and Spain indicated that they a way that does not compromise storage, and which would avoid would abstain in the vote on this motion. debates about the correct ratio between the weight of the fins and the weight of the carcass, save the inspectors’ time when State and agency members of the United States abstained during they verify compliance with the regulations, and provide optimal the vote on this motion. The United States Department of State conditions for the collection of accurate catch data by species; provided the following statement for the record:

AWARE that Article 12 of Resolution 62/177 adopted by the “The United States supports strong and effective efforts to

United Nations General Assembly during its 62nd Session, conserve and manage shark populations, including through bans “Calls upon States to take immediate and concerted action to on the wasteful practice of shark finning. We support the broad improve the implementation of and compliance with existing goals of this motion. Domestically, the United States does require regional fisheries management organization or arrangement and that sharks be landed with their fins naturally attached in our national measures that regulate shark-fisheries, in particular those Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries, and we plan to consider measures which prohibit or restrict fisheries conducted solely whether such a requirement is appropriate for our Pacific for the purpose of harvesting shark fins, and where necessary, fisheries as well. Consistent with the direction provided by the to consider taking other measures, as appropriate, such as 2007 United Nations General Assembly Sustainable Fisheries requiring that all sharks be landed with each fin naturally Resolution (62/177), we urge governments to take immediate attached”; action to improve compliance with shark finning bans, including,

46 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 47 where necessary, to consider requiring that sharks be landed The World Conservation Congress at its 3rd Session in and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, in with fins naturally attached.” Bangkok, Thailand, 17–25 November 2004: several points such as a requirement for landing shark bodies 1. URGES states with fisheries that capture sharks, whether with their fins adhered and a ban on transfer of shark fins in IUCN WCC RECOMMENDATION 3.116 in directed fishing activities or as accidental by-catch in other international waters. Shark finning (2004) fisheries, to implement the International Plan of Action for Recognising the economic and cultural importance of sharks in the Conservation and Management of Sharks, through the The Key point of shark conservation issue is that fishery activities many countries, their support to food security, their biological development of national and regional action plans incorporating a that only target shark fins are deteriorating shark resources. importance in the marine ecosystem, the vulnerability of some precautionary approach, that recognise the nutritional and socio- We have to recognise that a ban on finning without identifying shark species to exploitation, and the need for measures economic importance of sharks in some regions, that reduce to a species and areas with a real problem will never lead to a real promoting sustainable and long-term use of shark populations minimum waste and discard from shark catch and that promote conservation and management of shark resources. and fisheries developed from them; use of the entire catch through, inter alia, the implementation of bans on finning (removing any fin of the shark and discarding Further, it is not appropriate to discuss fishery issues in the CONCERNED that shark finning (removing any fin of the the body at sea) in their maritime water and by their flag vessels United Nations General Assembly, since there is no expert on shark and discarding the body at sea) causes the death of worldwide; fisheries. Therefore we cannot support this Recommendation. tens of millions of sharks, threatens many shark populations and potentially the very survival of species considered rare 2. URGES states with fisheries that capture sharks, whether The Department of State, United States, provided the following and vulnerable, and endangers not only traditional sustainable in directed fishery activities or as accidental by-catch in other statement for the record: fisheries but also recreational fisheries of socio-economic fisheries, or which facilitate the landing of shark products by importance; international flag vessels, to require that all sharks be landed with The United States supports strong and effective efforts to the fins attached to their bodies and to guarantee full utilization of conserve and manage shark populations, including through bans CONCERNED ALSO that the elimination of large quantities shark catches; on the practice of shark finning. We would just like to make a of predators at the apex of the marine ecosystem could have brief statement specifically in regard to operative paragraph dramatic and undesirable ecological impacts altering the balance 3. FURTHER URGES in those cases where this is not possible, 4. Given recent advances on this issue in the United Nations of the marine ecosystems and could jeopardise the production of vessels should be required to have on board fins that total no General Assembly, we believe that future efforts are best other species of commercial interest; more than five percent of the weight of sharks (defined as all directed towards the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, parts of the shark excepting head and guts), up to the point of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and other relevant AWARE that information on trade and landings indicate that first landing and those states that do not currently require fins international bodies with direct responsibility for the conservation finning is practiced widely, and to a great extent without and carcasses to be landed together, should take necessary and management of living marine resources. We support specific management or regulation, and that due to the biological measures to ensure compliance with the five percent ratio measures by these organizations to address this issue, consistent characteristics of sharks, it also results in unsustainable levels of through certification, monitoring by an observer, and other with the resolution recently adopted by the International mortality; appropriate measures, for example as required by the 2004 Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas CONCERNED MOREOVER that finning hinders the collection (ICCAT) Resolution; of specific scientific information on particular species, which is essential to monitor shark catch, landings, and biological 4. RECOMMENDS that all states should evaluate the parameters, and implement sustainable management of these effectiveness of their monitoring and capacity to enforce these fisheries, as required under international agreements and measures, drawing upon the expertise and resources of FAO, statutes; Regional Fisheries Organizations, other states and the IUCN Shark Specialist Group; NOTING that finning is contrary to the principles ofA rticle 7.2.2 (g) of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries of the 5. URGES states to support the development and adoption of a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and to new resolution of the United Nations General Assembly to ban all the principles, objectives and goals of the FAO International Plan shark finning in international waters; and of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (UN FAO IPOA–Sharks); and 6. VIGOROUSLY RECOMMENDS that states implement Resolution 12.6 Conservation and Management of Sharks and ALSO AWARE that at its 58th and 59th sessions, the United related decisions of the Convention on International Trade in Nations General Assembly urged Member States to develop Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). and implement national and, where appropriate, regional plans of action to activate the International Plan of Action for the The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, provided the following Conservation and Management of Sharks, to gather scientific statement for the record: information on shark catch, and to consider the adoption of conservation and management actions, “including by banning This Recommendation is inconsistent with the last year’s and this directed shark fisheries conducted solely for the purpose of year’s United Nations resolutions, as well as the FAO International harvesting shark fins” (paragraph 48 of Resolution A/RES/58/14); Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks

48 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 Shark fins in Europe | November 2010 49 The Shark Specialist Group (SSG), part of the IUCN The European Elasmobranch Association (EEA) coordinates (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Species the activities of national member organisations dedicated to Survival Commission, is a global network of 160 experts the study, management or conservation of chondrichthyans in shark biology, conservation, management, fisheries, (sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras). The EEA’s scientific and taxonomy. The SSG works to assess the threat status network formulates scientific policy and priorities to advance of sharks, rays and chimaeras, collate knowledge into research, sustainable management, conservation, and scientific publications and reports, and give independent, education on chondrichthyans throughout Europe. science-based advice to decision makers and management authorities. Further information: European Elasmobranch Assocation (EEA) IUCN Shark Specialist Group [email protected] c/o Department of Biology [email protected] Simon Fraser University www.eulasmo.org 8888 University Drive Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6 +1 778-782-3989 [email protected] www.iucnssg.org

About the authors: Sarah Fowler has 30 years experience as a marine ecologist and biodiversity conservation expert, working in government advisory bodies, environmental consultancy and non-governmental organisations. She has been deputy, co-chair or vice-chair of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group since its establishment in 1991, and was a co-founder of the European Elasmobranch Association and the UK Shark Trust. Sarah was awarded an OBE for services to marine conservation and is a Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation.

Bernard Séret is a senior scientist at IRD (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement), ocean biologist by education, he is a ichthyologist specialized in chondrichthyan fishes for 30 years. He sojourned and made several missions overseas and took part to numerous exploratory cruises in the Atlantic, Southern Ocean and South Pacific. He is the author of about 165 papers, with more than 100 on Chondrichthyes, including the description of several new species of sharks, rays and chimaeras. His current researches concern the biodiversity, the fisheries and the conservation of the Chondrichthyan fishes. He is the scientific chair of EEA, IUCN SSG expert and French representative of ICES-WGEF.